A handful of Christian arguments & tactics

This is a transcript of the podcast that is available by clicking here.

Hello, you're listening to the ex-Christian Monologues, a podcast from ExChristian.Net for April 30, 2006.

When Christians show up on this site, it is usually to argue. Rather than present positive evidence for their beliefs, they choose instead to throw out what I call side arguments on a variety of topics. These side arguments are not necessarily meant to show that Christianity is true, but they are meant to show that non-belief is an untenable worldview. Instead of presenting any positive evidence for the existence of a God, a Jesus, angels, devils, etc., they'll attack from different angles. The following is not meant as a comprehensive covering of all the possible apologetic directions Christians are in the habit of taking, but just a few of my favorite.

For instance: Hitler was supposedly an atheist.

Well, actually, the evidence shows he was a Catholic.

Hitler makes reference to God over 70 times in his autobiography, Mein Kampf.

Here are a few things he wrote and said:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.Mein Kampf, Vol 1, Chap II

Everybody who has the right kind of feeling for his country is solemnly bound, each within his own denomination, to see to it that he is not constantly talking about the Will of God merely from the lips but that in actual fact he fulfills the Will of God and does not allow God's handiwork to be debased. For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will.Mein Kampf, Vol II, Chap X

“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago—a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.Speech given April 12, 1922

And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited.Speech given April 12, 1922

May God Almighty give our work His blessing, strengthen our purpose, and endow us with wisdom and the trust of our people, for we are fighting not for ourselves but for Germany.Speech given Feb 1, 1933

At the head of our [National Socialist] program there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will—not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord.Speech given Sept 6, 1938

Nazi soldiers had “gottmituns” or “God with us” engraved on their belt buckle. There is a nice selection of Nazi religious photos available at nobeliefs.com.

For more details on Hitler’s religion check out Hitler’s Religion by Anne Nicol Gaylor & On the Trail of Bogus Quotes by Richard Carrier.

Now, was Hitler a "True Christian™?" By his words he appears to consider himself a Christian. Who are we to judge another man's heart? He certainly didn't consider himself an atheist, and that's the point of this little section.

Okay, enough on Hitler. On to Stalin. He was an atheist.

And, he was monster.

Interestingly enough, from 1894 to 1899, he attended the Orthodox Theological Seminary in Tiflis. Apparently his early ethics were partly derived from, or at least influenced by, the Bible.

Now, I'm reminded all the time, by Christians, that just because there are hundreds and hundreds of Christian leaders living today who have been caught stealing, or in adultery, or molesting Children, etc., that doesn't mean that all Christian leaders are despicable criminals. Then, there are the hundreds of thousands of criminal acts, wars, murders, tortures, crusades, heretic and witch burnings, and other cruel travesties against humanity, committed by Christian leaders during the past ten centuries. Supposedly that doesn't prove that Christianity is false either!

Okay, fine. Just because there are uncountable Christian leaders who have done, and are doing, horrible things, I'll admit that that doesn't mean Christianity is false or that all Christian leaders are bad. However, it does seem to indicate that there is no special magic in Christianity—no sanctifying, all-powerful Holy Spirit of God who is powerfully leading His people into holiness and truth.

As an ex-Christian I don't claim to have "the truth." I'm only claiming that I am no longer convinced that there is any truth in Christian claims, especially claims of flying, fiery chariots; or world-wide floods; or talking donkeys; or demons, ghosts and angels; or war in the heavenlies; or an unconditionally loving, undead, flying savior with a fiery sword shooting out his mouth to slay the wayward at the end of the world, and... Well, you get the point.

So, let's be consistent. Stalin was an atheist, and he was a demented mass-murderer. Does that mean that all people who reject Christian beliefs are sick, demented mass-murderers? Because if it does, then 2000 years of Christian horror makes all Christians evil.

Here's my point: since there are good people and there are bad people under every umbrella, it seems likely that no single worldview, or religion, has yet presented the cure for all the world's ills. Christianity has not been supernaturally successful in making bad people into good people. There is no magic pill, or magic holy book. I guess we'll all just have to keep working at making the world a better place, slipping and tripping along the way, instead of sitting around on our laurels waiting for a magical, mystery God to rapture us out of here.


Okay, next argument. Supposedly America was founded as a Christian nation.



No, not really. The words Christian, God, religion, and church do not appear in the Constitution of the United States.

The third Article in the Bill of Rights, which became the First Amendment, says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, stated that “Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.”

Aricle 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli says, "The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

Although some modern Christian apologists have gone to great lengths to throw doubt on this section of the Treaty by referencing the very real confusion that exists between the English the Arabic versions, Joel Barlow's English translation of Article 11, as recorded in the certified copy dated January 4, 1797, clearly contains this entire statement. Article 11 was read before, and passed unanimously by, the United States Senate, was signed by President John Adams and was approved by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, without a hint of controversy or discord. This document remains perhaps the earliest and most definitive statement as to the "Founding Fathers'" view of the secular nature of the American government.


Perhaps my favorite Christian argument is the one that says: prove to me that god does not exist.

This is the popular Christian fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

When someone claims something exists, it is up to him or her to prove it. To say, "Prove to me God does not exist" is to already assume that which has yet to be proved. In other words, the person is virtually saying, "God exists—prove that HE doesn't exist—you can't prove He doesn't exist, therefore God exists."

Let me illustrate another way. Prove that George Washington didn't exist. That statement is assuming there is a person called George Washington who exists, and then challenges the other to prove that he doesn't exist. The person is assuming that which he or she hopes to prove, namely, the existence of George Washington. The genuine questioner would phrase the inquiry something like this: "I've heard that there was a person named George Washington. What evidence do we have demonstrating the actual existence of this person?"

When a Christian says, "Prove that God doesn't exist," the Christian is assuming the existence of this god, demanding proof to the contrary, and then intimating that if no disproof can be offered, then that somehow proves that the god exists.

This is clearly circular reasoning.

For additional information on logical fallacies, visit Wikipedia.org.


Next we move on to "The Universe is so complex it must have been designed" argument.

How many times have you heard something along the lines of: "Surely you don't think all this just appeared here by chance?"

This is known as the Argument From Design.

It is a matter of dispute whether there is any element of design in the Universe.

Briefly, the Argument by Design is a belief that the existence of something as incredibly intricate as, for instance, a human being, is so improbable that human life itself is evidence of a deliberate, divine act.

But, if humanity is so improbable, then surely the existence of a being capable of fashioning an entire universe is even more unlikely.

If a creator created the Universe, then what created the creator?

And if the creator just "is" and was never created, then why not apply that same reasoning to the Universe itself?

Stephen Hawking, in his book "A Brief History of Time", explains his theory that the Universe is closed and finite in extent, with no beginning or end. He writes:
The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the Universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the Universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the Universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the Universe should have looked like when it started—it would still be up to God to wind up the clock and choose how to start it off. So long as the Universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the Universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?Stephen Hawking


The Argument From Design is sometimes called the Watchmaker Argument. By analogy, if a watch is found on the beach, it can be assumed that it was created by a watchmaker. So, since the Universe is much more intricate and complex than a watch, then the Universe must have a creator.

The Watchmaker analogy is flawed. Since a watchmaker creates watches from pre-existing materials, and God is claimed to have created the Universe from nothing, these two kinds of creation are fundamentally different. The analogy quickly breaks down.

Also, a watchmaker makes watches, but if further along the beach we find a nuclear reactor, we wouldn't assume that was created by the watchmaker. This argument, rather than suggesting one creator, would suggest quite a few creators, each responsible for a different part of creation, or a different universe, if you allow the possibility that there might be more than one.

Here's the biggest flaw in this argument: We assume the watch was created, or designed, by a watchmaker, because the watch is orderly. The watch stands out in contrast to the natural randomness of the beach. Then the argument takes a flip-flop and says that the Universe is not naturally random, but orderly, and thus it must be designed. So which is it? Does the beach, which represents the Universe in the analogy, show order or randomness? The Watchmaker argument is just plain inconsistent.

Is it unlikely for life to exist? Perhaps. But how unlikely is it for any of us alive today to exist? Knowing how human reproduction works, with the nearly infinite number of possible genetic combinations that reside in our parents, and in their parents, and so on, back generation after generation, to somehow culminate in the birth of you and me, well, let's compute the chances of that actually happening. Yet, with all those odds against us, here we all are. No matter the odds that might be against it, every week we hear of someone winning the lottery.

In conclusion, there's always the insults.

When Christians start to lose an argument they often resort to insults to distract or change the subject. Ignoring the insult is sometimes difficult, but there are a few Bible verses that may help get the discussion back on track. Remind that Christian of these verses:

Proverbs 12:16, "A fool is quick-tempered"

Luke 22:65, “And they threw all sorts of terrible insults at him.”

James 1:26, “If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.”

You've been listening to the Ex-Christian Monologues, a podcast from exChristian.Net.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I like to turn the "watch maker argument around. Its not as though somebody just up and decided to make watches. You can trace the evolution of watches from the quartz crystal back to back to the spring wound and then, back to hour candles and sun dials. At no one time did anyone come up with a complete design for a watch all on their own. It was a process of inspiration, good timing and (dare I say it) random luck. So, while watches are complex, manufactured devices, the reality of their existance is based on a unplanned, unforseeable chain of events.

Just like everything else.
Anonymous said…
The watchmaker argument is backwards. Any engineer will tell you that complexity is not a sign of design simplicity is. There was a great article in Free Inquiry recently that substituted a broken pane of glass for “the watch.” The designed smooth parallel surfaces and right angles are a startling contrast to the “chaos” of the broken edge.
Steven Bently said…
Thats the argument christians use when backed up against a wall!

What was there before watches, Sundials, yea Jesus might could have handled that one!

The only reason a watch was invented was to keep up with the movement of the Earth.

In other solar systems, there's probably no need for a watch, unless it's time to go to church, I sure as hell hope not!
Anonymous said…
Brigid said, "When people become christians, they hand over their minds, hearts, and consciences to the group. They are no longer individuals and are perfectly capable of following the group into murder or suicide."

Most definitely. This is what I tell my fundy husband often. He follows the rules to perfection, and when something goes wrong, he justfies himself by the rule. When we argue about it, I say to him that he would have made a perfect follower of Hitler.

Jim said, "I see all Christians today as first class idiots who let others do their thinking for them."

That's exactly what I was. I was an idiot. I only broke away when I decided to stop being lazy and think for myself.
Anonymous said…
I won't pretend to believe that I can address the bulk of your post Theotherian(?); I'll leave that the more educated ex-christians here.

But what you said at the beginning of your post, that some christians are not very smart, is very interesting.

Christians purport that once someone accepts christ into their "heart" as their personal savior, god's holy spirit enters that person. The holy spirit is essentially god, supposedly. God is said to be omniscient, supposedly. So, how is it that when someone has god's "spirit" inside of them, it doesn't make them any smarter? Wouldn't some of that mind-boggling amount of knowledge about every event that ever occured about every living (or non-living) thing rub off on its host a little bit?

I'd appreciate it if you could shed some light on this!
Anonymous said…
Most excellent.
Looking forward to more.
This guy has a million dollar voice.

Welcome to the church of logic.

Surely the lord has blessed your work webe with this man of logic coming aboard.HA HA

Hitler doing the work of the lord.?
G Bush doing the work of the lord.?
Dangerous stuff.

Well presented.
Thanks again
Dave Van Allen said…
"I think that God better explains the circumstances of the origins of the universe..."

That about sums up the bulk of your post. Why not just be honest and say, "I don't know, but I believe."

At this point in human evolution we simply cannot know some things. The limitation of our minds, bodies, knowledge, etc., makes it impossible to go much beyond our own moon right now. We've got a long way to go to getting a real good grasp on the Universe. We're not a whole lot better than our ancient ancestors who looked up at the night sky and thought the stars were gods and that thunder and lightening was evidence of their anger at something.

Even if it is true that there must be a causeless cause, that does not imply that that cause must be a conscious supernatural entity, and especially not that any such entity must match the description favored by any particular religion.
Anonymous said…
"Further, if Hawking is right and we find that the universe "doesn't need God", we still have not answered the question of whether or not God exists."

However, if a "God" exists and the universe doesn't need said "God" as an explanation, then it would be reasonable to conclude that man---who would in no way come close to being as "complex" as such a system as the entire universe---would not "need" said God as an explanation either. If we "don't need" said God either, then by definition and function, "it" is most certainly not a personal being even IF "it" did exist. If it is not a personal being, then whether "it" exists, or not, is totally immaterial from our perspective. Said "God" is essentially "dead weight". So in other words: Who cares? (Mind you, this has has zero to do with the existance of "Biblegod", who "is" an alleged "personal being".)

So--while it was refreshing seeing a post that didn't come across self-rightious and bigoted---it seems we're still back to square one: If there is evidence that the Christian god exists anywhere outside of someone's head, I'd love to here it.
Anonymous said…
Brigid,

You are one perceptive woman. In many ways I am lucky because I don't know any different. But I often hope it could be better...a lot better (the sex I mean).

On the other hand, he is not a macho man. He is kind, gentle, understanding, and he gives me room to be who I want to be. For a fundy, he is an absolute treasure. I don't know how many men would like to live with an opinionated, restless woman like me.

But the issue I mentioned is a problem. And I argue that it is caused by his fundy beliefs. The way he sees god translates to his everyday life. Let me illustrate.

I send him an email asking him to make supper. The email contains instructions on making, say, quick pork chops. I make a mistake and instead of 1/4 teaspoon of salt I type 2 teaspoons.

He doesn't question the amount of salt. He follows the instructions to the letter and if the food sucks, it is my fault because I wrote the recipe (common sense is never applied).

Then when we argue about it, I tell him that he behaves like the loyals of Hitler. And I tell him that just as he didn't question the "salt," he is failing to question the church's teachings as well.

Anyway, so goes my life.
Anonymous said…
Brigid,

For more information on the issue you raised, you can read this entry from my blog:
http://exfundamentalist.blogspot.com/2006/04/everybody-was-having-sex-but-me.html
Anonymous said…
Theotherian, your evidence is interesting, but its mostly circumstantial:

"Okay, easy and less important arguments up front. The massive appeal of religion. The overwhelming majority of humanity believes in a god or gods of some kind. Why? If design is present in the world, a logical step would be to say that the majority of humanity pursues religion because it was designed into us."

First, I think you'ld agree that most of the world's religions are based on superstitions. What you're calling design is really nothing more than humanity's need to label the unknown. (Its a lot less frightening that way.) And I don't see this as design so much as a psychological defense mechanism. A good example of this can be found in your first posting where you take an unknowable phenomenon (the nature of time) and admit that you are more comfortable thinking that some god must have been the first cause at the beginning of everything. Likewise, humanity felt more comfortable thinking that gods caused the rain and made flowers bloom rather than facing an un-named unknown.
Now, if everybody had an unexplainable need to believe in some guy nailed to a cross, then you might be able to say that there is a god and he designed us to believe in him.

Second, religion has very often been used as a powerful political tool for controlling the masses. Those in power have always benefitted from supporting a belief in supernatural beings. Particularly if these being "wanted" the rulers to stay in power. This has as much to do with the "popularity" of gods as anything.

"Further, the presence of morality supports a theistic worldview. If no God exists, I can't think of a convincing reason to call an action "right" or "wrong". And the emotivist answer doesn't seem to pose a satisfying solution, because I don't just not like torturing babies for fun, but I know that people ought not to do it."

There are lots of animals that are bigger, stronger, faster, more perceptive and more dangerous than human beings. And yet, we have dominated all life on this planet for several thousand years. Why? Two reasons: we're smart and we work well together. But working together is more than just tolerating one another. It requires strong social tools like bonding and trusting and sharing. Christians like to talk about morality like its some big, magical thing. But, in reality, its really just a combination of empathy, sympthy, honesty, generosity and compassion. Nothing mystical or un-natural about these things; they're just part of the building blocks necessary for building the social skills that our species needed to survive and prosper.

"Further, the problem of evil actually supports a theistic worldview. Unless there is a conception of goodness, evil does not exist. In order to make the argument against God by using the problem of evil, one must first believe that there is objective evil. In order to believe that, one must first believe in God for the same reason morality without God doesn't make sense."

The "problem of evil" does not require belief in absolute evil. In fact, its quite the contrary. The problem states that:
1. If there is an absolute good (god), then there must be an absolute evil.
2. And if god created all that exists then god must have created absolute evil. ('cause evil is part of all that exists).
3. But how could absolute good create absolute evil?
If you throw out the notion of absolutes (and god right along with'em) the problem goes away.

So, what is evil? I like to think of it as a standard or a label that we apply to things that we consider really, really bad. It exists in the same way that humor, affection and beauty exist. We know what they are, we know them when we see them, but you can't bottle them and show them off to other people. They are all apart of our personal, subjective perspective of reality.

"The universe does seem to be heading somewhere, life does seem to have a purpose, and why in the world does the universe obey all these rules anyway? Its what you might expect if a personal being designed it all."

No, its what you'ld feel more comfortable believing in rather than facing the possibility that there isn't anyone "at the wheel" and no purpose that would make any sense.

"If we evaluate Jesus' life and the records about it as we evaluate the rest of history, I can find no better explanation for the evidence than that Jesus did indeed die, and on the third day rise from the dead."

The records we have of Jesus's resurrection come from copies made from unknown originals written by biased people whome we cannot identify. We can't even be sure there ever was a Jesus.

You want a better explanation? How about Emperor Constantine formed the council of Nicea in 325 AD (a committee of government appointed experts) to better define what christianity was (because it was really eclectic back then) and they picked and choosed and rewrote and edited the literature they had available (whether it was authentic or not) and created a book which would satisfy the Emperor (not god) as the basis for the official christian church. All dissenting literature was destroyed and anyone who objected or found fault with the book was told to like it OR ELSE! Subsequent generations of the church refined and retooled the book until it was more or less self-reliant. Does this sound at all plausible?

You seem to be very intelligent. You should explore beyond the boundaries of what you've been told. I think you would benefit greatly from this.
Anonymous said…
"Whome" should be "whom"
sorry :).
Anonymous said…
theotherian,

I would like to thank you for not being a typical Christian who presents little to no empirical evidence for their belief. I would like to continue this theme of discussing ideas while not trying to force anything on anyone.

While science cannot explain human ethics, at this point in time, that does not necessarily mean God is its driving force or creator. I think Marc Geddes makes a good point in the quote below by suggesting that evidence leads one to believe our minds are likely “equivalent to the physical processes at work in the brain.” If that’s the case, then it would help make God one more step removed from our daily existence.

“to scientific rationalism, there are no supernatural forces at work within the cosmos. Only natural physical forces, operating according to the laws of physics. Human bodies and brains are physical objects. And so all of our thoughts (including our value systems) could be described in terms of physical processes occurring within our brains. The scientific, materialist perspective takes some getting used to when we attempt to apply it to our own minds. To this day many intellectuals and religious folks alike still have difficulty coming to terms with the idea that we are equivalent to our bodies and brains - that all the wonders of consciousness can be explained through entirely natural processes and there are no supernatural elements at work.

But the evidence for the materialist scientific perspective is over-whelming. For instance drugs and illness clearly alter our mental abilities and states. Specific brain injuries result in specific mental disabilities. It seems very likely that the mind is equivalent to the physical processes at work in the brain.”



I believe it is probable that there is a mathematics of morality and maybe even to the purpose of life. The way I see it, morality is based on what is most beneficial. In most actions taken I go through tons of calculations/scenarios to help determine what will be the best outcome based on past experience and observations. Again, Marc puts it well: “The two great themes of morality then are Harmony and Expansion. On the intrapersonal level Harmony manifests itself as the harmonious functioning of a sentient being as a whole - loosely 'Health'. And expanions (moving towards ones values) manifests itself as 'Happiness'. On the interpersonal level we perceive Harmony as 'Altruism' - people interacting together to help each other. And the movement towards an enhanced range of action for all translates to the fourth fundamental value - increased freedom or 'Growth'.”

If you want to understand some of the reasons why I am interested in this theory, then I HIGHLY recommend reading from this link for a healthy introduction into some enlightening concepts.

http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/th/comments/towards-a-science-of-morality/

I have some qualms with total acceptance of Christianity and list a few reasons why in this link.
http://www.exchristian.net/testimonies/2006/04/my-anti-testimony-or-i-was-christian.html

Countless actions of God don’t make sense to me anymore. Combine that with all the apologetics involved with the Bible, the hypocrisy and corruption of today’s and yesterday’s church with Occam’s Razor and it leaves you doubting.



Theotherian wrote:
“That is, conversion to Christianity does (at least according to orthodox belief) mean the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for every believer. BUT, it does not mean an immediate and complete change for every (or even necessarily any) Christian. So we should not expect all Christians to immediately become geniuses. Anyone here disagree based on their experience? Didn't think so. :-)”

I stand to reason that along with intelligence can come morality and not the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The purpose of allowing a being to confront needed changes in one’s life has the same effect as being open to new ways of thinking and new approaches that produce more beneficial results. Again, if we take the materialist scientific perspective or something similar to it, then we can see that it’s not God doing the change but the power of the individual’s mind. I know that’s very humanistic but I only throw it out as food for thought.

Another quote:
“The overwhelming majority of humanity believes in a god or gods of some kind. Why? If design is present in the world, a logical step would be to say that the majority of humanity pursues religion because it was designed into us. Further, the presence of morality supports a theistic worldview. If no God exists, I can't think of a convincing reason to call an action "right" or "wrong".”

As Dave (WB) said earlier, we’re still very primitive in our understanding of the universe. Tell me what is easier: explaining our reality in terms of religion or science? What takes less work? I have the answer; It’s religion.

To address your second question point - based on the links I have provided I’m not convinced you’ve looked hard enough to know why we consider certain action’s “right” or “wrong.”


That was my attempt at being concise. =) It’s stinking 4a.m. and I’m not investigating any other points until a later time.
Dave Van Allen said…
Theo. A lot of words to say:

"Well, the answer is fairly straightforward I think...I believe"


"Formal logic as most people learn it is deductive rather than inductive. Some philosophers claim to have created systems of inductive logic, but it is controversial whether a logic of induction is even possible. In contrast to deductive reasoning, conclusions arrived at by inductive reasoning do not necessarily have the same degree of certainty as the initial assumptions. For example, a conclusion that all swans are white is obviously wrong, but may have been thought correct in Europe until the settlement of Australia. Inductive arguments are never binding but they may be cogent. Inductive reasoning is deductively invalid. (An argument in formal logic is valid if and only if it is not possible for the premises of the argument to be true whilst the conclusion is false.)"—Reference.Com

You made a few dogmatic sounding statements—statements Christians frequently use to describe the Christian life and process—but you failed to offer any references supporting your dogmatism.

You present your opinions cogently, but your foundational method is shaky at best, so all I keep coming away with is someone who expresses their opinions well.

Summation: "I think...I believe."
Dave Van Allen said…
"It (evil) exists in the same way that humor, affection and beauty exist. We know what they are, we know them when we see them, but you can't bottle them and show them off to other people. They are all a part of our personal, subjective perspective of reality."

Thanks Tigg. A concise and accuarte analogy for defining evil. I'll remember this one.
Anonymous said…
"Further, the presence of morality supports a theistic worldview"


"Evil", as it pertains to religious dogma, is presumably supposed to be objectively defined. "Evil" is "wrong"; "Holiness" is "right." This is objective? Bull. There's hundreds of denominations/sects of Christianity, NONE of which completely agree on what is "wrong", and what is "right". It's completely subjective, just like ALL religious dogma. We, as the human race, might be able to get away with saying "wrong" is simply doing unnecessary harm to others; "right" is minimizing harm to others. The idea that morality is "Divinely" inspired is a joke. There are things that we, as a civilized society, have evolved to know are "wrong" that are NOT in the Holy Bible, or any other holy book. Tell me, how is this possible if our "divine baby sitter" didn't spell it out for us in his "word"? Waiting.
Anonymous said…
Hey Brigid, welcome back. Don't feel bad, my post on personal/non-personal god concepts got glossed over too. I guess that could be a common "tactic", too? Anyway, if your "pleasures" have meaning to you?.... that's all that matters. And only a shallow bigoted a$$-hole(sorry god) would care whether you share those pleasures with a man, or a women. Give Mistress a high-five, or a little pat on the ass for me. lol.

Peace, boom.
Anonymous said…
I just want to say that I'm enjoying reading many of these thoughtful posts. I appreciate all of you taking time to provide meaningful input. It gives me things to think about.
Anonymous said…
Brigid wrote:
"The major thing is the wild notion that before god could forgive the smallest of our misdemeanors, his combination human/divine son had to be butchered in a roman exection, and if we find that ludicrous, he will burn us in hell forever. That is not just ludicrous, that is crazy; and theo, I do not care if you have a pile of manuscripts that reaches from here to the moon, it is still crazy. I do not care if all 6.5 billion people on earth believe every word of the bible, it is still crazy.
I think the point has been made"

BRIGID. Isn't it amazing how even the Christians who come onto this site, who are smarter than the rest, and still have functioning brains, so conspicuously dance around and pretend not to see that the whole "God knocked up a virgin so he could have a special son (What are we? Chopped liver?), in order to sacrifice that son to himself, to atone for sins that he invented himself," SCENARIO, as pagan thinking, and a collation of pagan myths that show up in the very first creation stories?

Even the ones who will spend days here talking about a bunch of stupid Jewish history, will never address the most obvious irrational aspects of their religion. I have a theory, that they think, if they totally ignore the problem in YOUR paragraph above, it will go away.
Dan (Agnostic, Humanist, Rationalist)
Anonymous said…
Brigid wrote:
"The major thing is the wild notion that before god could forgive the smallest of our misdemeanors, his combination human/divine son had to be butchered in a roman exection, and if we find that ludicrous, he will burn us in hell forever. That is not just ludicrous, that is crazy; and theo, I do not care if you have a pile of manuscripts that reaches from here to the moon, it is still crazy. I do not care if all 6.5 billion people on earth believe every word of the bible, it is still crazy.
I think the point has been made"

BRIGID. Isn't it amazing how even the Christians who come onto this site, who are smarter than the rest, and still have functioning brains, so conspicuously dance around and pretend not to see that the whole "God knocked up a virgin so he could have a special son (What are we? Chopped liver?), in order to sacrifice that son to himself, to atone for sins that he invented himself," SCENARIO, as pagan thinking, and a collation of pagan myths that show up in the very first creation stories?

Even the ones who will spend days here talking about a bunch of stupid Jewish history, will never address the most obvious irrational aspects of their religion. I have a theory, that they think, if they totally ignore the problem in YOUR paragraph above, it will go away.
Dan (Agnostic, Humanist, Rationalist)
Dave Van Allen said…
Theo-Ian said: "Mr. Webmaster...I assume that you are a scientific naturalist."

Label me whatever you'd like and continue to post long, complicated posts, but in the end all you've said is that you prefer to believe in Christianity.

I no longer believe in talking snakes, chatting donkeys, flying fiery chariots, world-wide floods, magically refilling pots of food, flying undead god-men, or any of the other fantastic, wonderful, amazing, myths from any culture. Of course I could be mistaken, and in the near future giant flying locusts are going to sear the ground and kill most of humanity. Not to mention that big animal with all horns that wants to rule the world. In fact, I don't believe in golden fleeces or cyclops monsters either, though I do appreciate the imaginations of the men who invented these myths.

Anyway, I consider myself a non-theist, an atheist if you prefer. I'm all for "what could be." I love a good story. But, until I get more evidence of what is, rather than what might be, I remain a skeptic of Bronze Age, tribal, cultic, magical deities.
Anonymous said…
As others have said, you can believe what you want to believe.

I think we've reached the point now where we're not understanding or agreeing with each other's arguments.

I don't see evidence of a god being active in our daily lives at all. We've given reason why we have difficulty taking the Bible at face value.

If there's a god out there, I think it should be clear which god we should worship. Why does it have to be so confusing if that god really wants to be known? Nearly every religion thinks they have it right and put others down; Whose to say anyone has it right? Tolerance of other beliefs is welcome.

People can believe what they want to believe, but please let's not try to force a belief onto another.
Anonymous said…
Religious Right-wing GOP Christian Ministries,

Keep spreading hate and fear and then see how many people join you. The main way you'll with converts is with love. Your approach is disgusting and it appears to me you have not even bothered to understand our concerns.

Have fun living in your own little world.
Anonymous said…
with = win
Anonymous said…
Religious Right-wing GOP Christian Ministries, I read some of the information on your blog site. Here's what I found within minutes of visiting your site.

"Thursday, May 04, 2006

Teen-Sex-Free Porn
Teen Sex Free Porn - 8:29 AM

Welcome to the Teen-Sex-Free Porn movement, where porn stars and anti-porn activists unite! We can unite because we all agree, child pornography is wrong. Nobody likes child pornography, anti-porn activists don't like *any* porn, much less child porn, but even porn stars agree child pornography is bad for porn's reputation, so both sides can come together and support this movement to free porn from teen-sex."

http://teen-sex-free-porn.blogspot.com/

Yeah, you freak. You actually have the audacity to come onto this site, and tell people they are going to hell and are damned forever, and then... your religious beliefs, have no problem siding with porn stars as long as they are supporting your views on one topic?

Well, if that's the case, why not get a bunch of terrorists to side with you on "one" topic, I mean, does it really matter what else those people do?

You hypocrite, what a loser.

And, you said:

"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:"

Your god is a manipulating bastard, literally speaking. Why don't you go find somewhere else to throw stupidity around, perhaps over at some christian site, I mean, many of them are willing to accept anything blindly without even asking a question to see if your words are worth the time. As for me, you are a waste of bandwidth, and cognitive energy, your words are as useless as your manipulative gods', perhaps this post will "flush" your waste down the proverbial cyber-toilet.
Anonymous said…
Fantastic post, Liquid Drain-0.

Thanks for the help in fending off this jerk.
Anonymous said…
Hey Truth0r, my pleasure, it seems the resident idiot of that post above, and the blog members are united in idiocy :-)

If they succeed in shutting down a part of the sex industry, it will have a dramatic impact on the social lives of many religious leaders.

Well, without the option for going out and getting their flesh fix, I suppose we'll see more and more religious leaders turn to church members for assistance in meeting their sexual needs. The only way to hide a secret, is to confide in someone who has as much to lose - church members ;-) Have a great one.
Anonymous said…
The ways of God are without fault. The Lord's words are pure. He is a shield to those who trust Him. Who is God? Only the Lord. Who is the Rock? Only our God. God is my protection. He makes my way free from fault. -Psalm 18:30-32

Who is Christ to you?
Anonymous said…
To answer your last question 4Given, he's a mythological character created by semi-literate men a little less than 2000 years ago. His invention as the "son of god" was generated in the hopes of drawing more people (more people means more power and eventually more money)to a very obscure cult that was vying with other religious sects with their own prophets.

The only reason you make all the claims about god is because someone brainwashed you enough when you were younger to believe unquestioningly in the book written by those same semi-literate men. Here's a clue...it was made up in order to control people, not to enlighten them, same as it is today.

Who is god? Depends on whom you ask. Allah? Thor? The Great Spirit? Yahweh? Jehovah? Ra? Take your pick...they are ALL man-made.
Anonymous said…
Where does it say in the Bible that God is man made, and all the men that wrote it were just making everything up? The Bible contains everything one would need to know for their whole lives, and their afterlife. so i would think there would be something in it about that if it were true.

And why do you say I'm brainwashed? you act like my christianity is a disease or something. And yes, when i was younger, I did recieve Christ as my personal savior, I wouldn't think of calling it brainwashing.

And yes, other religions do have different gods. Most of them were real people who lived before them that were wise, heroic, or just, worth remembering. But they weren't actually gods, they called them that. I'm talking about GOD. You know, "Alpha and Omega", the first and the last, ring a bell?? HE was the author of the Bible. The men that wrote it(ex:Moses, John, Paul, etc.)were writers inspired by God. They were regular people with regular problems. They didn't even know their work would be part of the Holy Scriptures one day.
And the Bible wasn't made for controlling people. It's a story. It's God's master plan for mankind. It tells what happened, what is happening, and what will happen for eternity. We either accept it, or reject it. It's your choice.
Anonymous said…
"And why do you say I'm brainwashed?"

That's easy. Because you say stuff like this:

"The Bible contains everything one would need to know for their whole lives, and their afterlife."

-Wes.
Anonymous said…
OK...
so why do you call that brainwashing?
Anonymous said…
Simple. Because you were taught to believe that christianity and the bible are true from other bible-believing christians, even though there is zero impirical evidence to support any of it (outside of the bible, and 'I Believe...'). You believe the bible/christianity to be truth just as every other religious adherent believes their repsective creeds and doctrines to be truth. Why? Because you're religious mindset is nothing more than a product of the heavily christian social influences that you have been exposed to, and nothing more. If you were born in India, you would most likely be Hindu, right? And you'd be here at this site proclaiming that Hinduism is truth... -Wes.
Anonymous said…
"The Bible contains everything one would need to know for their whole lives, and their afterlife."

You should put the "I Believe" statement before all that. I don't know how you can make such a blatantly ignorant claim. Sure, there may be bits of global wisdom in there, but there's nothing in there that is unique or original to YOUR religion. And how can you apply the bible to the afterlife? Have you been there? Where is your proof that the bible is all you need to know for the afterlife? On what authority can you make such a claim? See where I'm going? You're going to fall back onto your beliefs to form your rebuttal here because you have no choice but to do so. You have NOTHING to base your claims here, except "I Believe", and that just leads you back to the bible (where your beliefs originate), and that makes this whole debate circular and meaningless. You have not thought it out before you penned that statement; you are just simply parroting out the same rhetoric that every christnut does when visiting here, without contributing anything of any real value. -Wes.
Anonymous said…
4given: And yes, other religions do have different gods. Most of them were real people who lived before them that were wise, heroic, or just, worth remembering. But they weren't actually gods, they called them that.

How is this different from the god of the Bible? What, other than years of Christian indoctrination, predisposes you to think that ???? was not merely some proto-Canaanite warlord who kicked butt and became a legend to the ancestors of the Israelites?

And how can you (presumably a human mortal like the rest of us here on this site) be in any position to actually identify an "Alpha and Omega" if one existed?

4given, I doubt very, very much that you are privy to any spectacularly superior knowledge of Life, the Universe and Everything. All you have is a dusty old book that you've stapled to the inside of your brain with your own fears and hopes.

Words are unable to prove the existence of gods. Stop trying to use the Bible to prove itself -- It just makes you look foolish.
Anonymous said…
Addendum: The "????" should be the Hebrew characters for Yahweh. They show up fine on the post preview but not on the published comment.
Anonymous said…
Okay, before this gets any further, I wanna say that "I" am not a religion. It doesn't matter what my religion is, what's important is whether I have Christ or not. So Wes, if I was born in India, then I WOULD most likely be Hindu like you said. I probably WOULD proclaim that my religion would be the right way to go. But if I had trusted Christ as my savior, it wouldnt matter what my beliefs and customs were anymore. So it doesn't matter what your "religion" is, whether you were catholic, baptist, jewish, or hindu, etc. If you know Christ, you're in.

Wes, you want to know the proof about the afterlife. It's all in the Bible! (yes, I'm back to that subject) What do YOU believe happens after death? Well, "I Believe" that you can know for sure where you're going after death. It's in the Bible. And I know, you don't believe in the Bible. But you know, there are so many scholars and historians that have tried to prove the Bible wrong for years. They can't do it.

Astreja, you asked for evidence of an Alpha and Omega.
Rev.22:13- I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
I believe it because it's from the Bible. That's the strongest evidence I can come up with.
Anonymous said…
Thanks for proving my point better than even I could. -Wes.
Dave Van Allen said…
The God of the Bible exists because the Bible says He does.

The Bible is true because the God in the Bible says it is true.

What don't you get, Wes? It makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Oh, and scholars have been trying to prove that Allah doesn't exist, and you know what? THEY CAN'T DO IT!
Anonymous said…
Then I guess I must be mentally challenged or something! Yikes! :-) -Wes.
Anonymous said…
4given, the following has been said a gazillion times but bears repeating. Please listen this time.

Quoting from the Bible proves nothing. Nothing at all. The book cannot be used to prove the existence of gods, worldwide floods, talking snakes, or people rising from the dead. What you may call a "miracle" is, in our eyes, further evidence that the Bible is primarily mythological rather than factual or historical.

The book is a compilation by many authors, many of whom are unknown. Some parts, such as the flood myth, were plagiarized from earlier works. (q.v. the Akkadian epic of Atrahasis).

Other parts of the Bible are attributed to specific people but probably written by somebody else. It is unlikely, for instance, that any of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses.

And, to add insult to injury, the Biblical canon was assembled several hundred years after the alleged birth and death of Jesus. This happened at the first council of Nicaea, in the year 325. The books you have in your precious little Bible were the lucky ones -- Many others were voted off the island by the three hundred or so clergy in attendance at the meeting. So your alleged "truth" depends very much of the whims of a group of men who assembled at the command of the emperor Constantine.

You can quote from the Bible till you're blue in the face. You can rock back and forth in your chair and clutch the book to your chest and whisper "I do I do I do believe in Holy Spooks." We won't try to stop you. But neither will we believe you.
Anonymous said…
4given: Astreja, you asked for evidence of an Alpha and Omega.
Rev.22:13- I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
I believe it because it's from the Bible. That's the strongest evidence I can come up with.


No, that isn't "evidence" at all. You're quoting a book which I personally think is sub-standard fiction.

If that quotation "proves" the existence of an "Alpha and Omega" (whatever that is), then Detective Comics #27 proves the existence of Batman and Fellowship of the Ring proves the existence of Frodo Baggins. In my experience your god is no more and no less real than the above-noted characters.

Oh, and for the record, my initials are AO. ;-)
Anonymous said…
Sorry I just wanted to see where the post led. I believe what I believe because I believe it is the truth. Since I know that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west...if I believed that it did not and that it rose in west and set in the east...then I would be wrong. Just a thought. (Did not tell you anything at all did I. *shrug* He said I was going to.)
boomSLANG said…
Anony-non: I believe what I believe because I believe it is the truth.

That's nice...totally redundant, but nice. Now, this may come as a shock to you, but John Travolta believes what he believes, because he believes it's the "truth". Now, is that some astonishing disclosure? 'Point is---what is "believed" to be "true", is not always what IS "true".

Personally, I "believe" you are BOTH mistaken in your "beliefs", however, if either, or both of you could offer convincing evidence that your "belief" is true---beyond in your head---I'd be happy to change my view of your "beliefs".

Anony-non: Since I know that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west...if I believed that it did not and that it rose in west and set in the east...then I would be wrong

Well, if you believe the sun "rises", you're wrong, regardless. It only appears to "rise"--evidence that some Bronze-aged misconceptions have carried into the 21 century in the form of "adage"..i.e.."Hey!...did you see the 'sunrise' this morning?"..or, "Let Jesus into your heart!"

Now, back to your point---you "know" that the sun "rises" in the East, do ya? Yes, there is objective empirical evidence that the sun first becomes visible in the East, because of the direction in which the earth revolves. We know this because of "scientific inquirey". Furthermore, this phenomena is readily available to EVERY human being, not a "select few", hence, why the issue isn't currently being debated. Think about it. There is no "DOUBT".

Now, if you "know" that your Jesus exists in the same way, there would likewise be objective evidence to put forth as to "test" your "Jesus" hypothesis. But guess what, Anony?...guess what MikeG, Pray4U, Unblinded, Pat, and any other Christian reading this??? THERE ISN'T ANY. 'Nope....there is no evidence, thus, I disbelieve your fantastic mystical claims.

Good day.
Agki said…
Lorena said: " This is what I tell my fundy husband often. He follows the rules to perfection, and when something goes wrong, he justfies himself by the rule. When we argue about it, I say to him that he would have made a perfect follower of Hitler."

Have you read Chris Hedges's book "American Fascists"? Hedges went to James Kennedy's church and watched the way the women behaved in family units. The only difference betwen them and Muslim women is the burka. They are trained from childhood to be subservient and submissive to men.

Agki
Anonymous said…
All very good comments and I can't read them all, but to the next reader I say this..

I can't disprove the existance of a god, that's just stupid. But it's ignorant to accept any improbability without probable evidence. In contrast, the intelligent way to think of spirituality is to simply say "I don't know." And then to live well, possibly in search for that answer, and hope for the best.

As it is, religions create friction because of group seperation, superiority complexes, encrouchment, and so on. The harm of a "harmless" religion is it's ability to foster harmful users of its power. It would be better if the general public could see the unseen harm as of yet and simply toss religion as another form of communistic dictatorship style of rule.

Come out of the barbaric superstitious past and evolve with the rest of the intelligent community. Throw off the shackels of dogmatic violent domination and embrace the species as one under a peaceful search for knowledge, understanding, and survival. As one we can sustain, divided we will commit suicide.
Dave Van Allen said…
I will not argue religion. It is totally a mind game. However, I would give all of you a big hug and say to you that truly every one believes something. I hope all of you are happy in your position..

Live Stone

  Books purchased here help support ExChristian.Net!