Christian kids are typically sent to Sunday school for lessons on the Bible and morals. For nonbelievers, there's atheist Sunday school.
With an estimated 14 percent of Americans professing to have no religion, according to the Institute for Humanist Studies, some are choosing to send their children to classes that teach ethics without religious belief.
Bri Kneisley sent her 10-year-old son, Damian, to Camp Quest Ohio this past summer after a neighbor had shown him the Bible.
"Damian was quite certain this guy was right and was telling him this amazing truth that I had never shared," said Kneisley, who realized her son needed to learn about secularism, according to Time magazine.
Camp Quest, also dubbed "The Secular Summer Camp," is offered for children of atheists, freethinkers, humanists and other nonbelievers who hold to a "naturalistic, not supernatural world view," the camp website states.
The summer camp, offered across North America and supported by the Institute for Humanist Studies, is designed to teach rational inquiry, critical thinking, scientific method, ethics, free speech, and the separation of religion and government.
Kneisley welcomes the sense of community the camp offers her son.
"He's a child of atheist parents, and he's not the only one in the world," she said, according to Time.
Atheist and humanist programs are expected to pop up in such cities as Phoenix, Albuquerque, N.M., and Portland, Ore., and adult nonbelievers are leaning on such secular Sunday schools to help teach their kids values and how to respond to the Christian majority in the United States.
Outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins argues that teaching faith to children can be dangerous, noting the possibility of extremism.
"The point about teaching children that faith is a virtue is that you're teaching them that you don't have to justify what you do, you can simply shelter behind the statement 'that's my faith and you're not to question that,'" he argued in a debate with Christian apologist John Lennox last month.
A recent study by Ellison Research, however, found that most Americans who attended church as a child say their past worship attendance has had a positive impact on them. The majority, including those who no longer currently attend religious services, said their attendance at church as a child gave them a good moral foundation and that they are glad they attended.
Yet today, nonbelievers want their children to participate in Sunday school the secular way.
"I'm a person that doesn't believe in myths," says Hana, 11, who attends the Humanist Community Center in Palo Alto, Calif., according to Time. "I'd rather stick to the evidence."
RSS
To annie... I want to go on about your claims. Feeling emotions even if they are immensly powerful, does not justify a being one cannot see or hear. To somewhat clarify the situation, an example, people can fall in love with a concept. Democracy is a beautiful concept that when I first fully understood it, I had quite an emotional experience, a pride for my country and for the founders who created it, for their insight and intellect, for their bravery and courage in daring to do such a brilliant feat that help progress humanity as a whole. I can love this concept, I can love plenty of concepts, ideals and ideas. The idea of a God who loves and forgives you no matter what you do is a beautiful concept. It is not hard to imagine that a person would fall in love with such a concept. But just because you simply felt an emotion over a concept does not mean that concept now exists. You can be intimately intertwined with a concept, on so many different levels, but it does not mean that concept comes to life, or that any character read out of a fictional novel is true either. I just finished reading Gone with the wind, and there was this darling creature of a lady named Melanie, who was one of the kindest ladies ive ever heard of. No matter how fond I was of her, it does not mean she will ever exist. By all means if I had obssessed over her she could have become the center of my life as well, always thinking about her and comparing her with other women maybe even falling in love and having a 'relationship' with her. I know this sounds rude, but really that is exactly how an atheist views this and thats the sad fact of the matter. I dont like that I should ever tell a person that I believe they are worshiping a fictional character, but I am not in control over everything life hands me.
First of all I'd like to say that I hadnt expected anyone to respond to me so i stopped checking on this.
To Annie:
I appreciate that you are learning to try and debate civily, it is very important if you ever want to get anywhere with anyone. Attacking a person never gets anyone to hear what youre saying. Rather it makes them repellant, and defensive, and then they wont want to hear anything you say. As to your response to me, I disagree completely. I have never had a relationship with God, not once in my entire life, even when I was slightly religious. If I had, I would be religious today. If I didnt know the meaning of love, I honestly can say I would not be able to live in this world. As most people would probably agree with me. Its a wonderful thing that you got out of the abyss you were in. I just think you have a misconception of the way the human mind works.
To Schumacr
God created the rules that govern this world. He may have given us free will but he gave us the freedom to choose evil. You say it is the absence of Good, but who defined what the absence of good would be? Theres still a flaw in that logic. Also if God can defy logic, can he make a rock he cannot lift? Im sure youve heard quite a few of those :P. Also if he cant create evil than he is not all powerful, and he did not create the rules that govern this world. Trees may rot, but it was God who decided they would rot as opposed to turn to stone or something else entirely. .
Your response about the creation of Adam Eve and Lucifer seems to suggest that you dont believe that God did not already know what they would do, making him not all knowing.
As for morality, I believe all people know the difference between right and wrong. If you wish to fight for the word morality, then you may have it, but I do not believe that God and Religion can claim morality for themselves. If this were true you would have to ask which religions morality is right, and why arnt all atheists immoral snobs who go around killing people?
TokenSP – you’ve asked some good questions, so I’ll try and respond as briefly as I can, although the subject matter is deep. First, you cannot give what you don’t have, so God did not create evil. Evil is not a thing; it is a privation or corruption in a thing – like rot on a tree can’t exist without the tree or rust on a car can’t exist without the car. Just as sickness is the absence of health and darkness is the absence of light; this is what evil really is. All evil can be traced back to one thing – the misuse of freedom. God granted man freedom, but freedom means just that – being able to choose poorly. For God to excise evil, He would need to remove freedom; this is like cutting off your good leg because your foot hurts. For a full treatment of this, see Alvin Plantiga’s book “God, Freedom, and Evil”. God created the possibility of evil, but is not the author of the acts of evil at all.
Why did God create Lucifer and Adam and Eve if He knew what they’d do? Do you have kids yourself? If so, why did you have them when you knew they’d disobey you and possibly not love you in the end? This mixes back in with freedom; we have the freedom to choose or turn from God, but those who choose Him do so freely and those who reject Him do so freely. Anything else would be forced and forced love is nothing but rape.
Finally, torus and I went a few rounds on this next point. As an atheist, you have no basis for calling anything evil. If there’s such a thing as evil, you assume there’s such a thing as good. If you assume there’s such a thing as good, you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil (as C.S. Lewis said - you can't recognize a crooked line unless you know what a straight one looks like). If you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver, but that’s whom you’re trying to disprove. This is why Dawkins says there is no such thing as evil or good; the position is consistent with atheism.
On your question of making humans from dust, realize that if you acknowledge a God who created everything from nothing, this is no problem; admit God and you admit miracles, that is the bargain as C. S. Lewis said. But your position is more troublesome because, as an atheist, you have to explain scientifically how you get something from nothing.
Thanks!
GMG, I've appreciated your discussion also and Schumacr, I've really appreciated the things you have written as that has helped this young (in the faith that is) :o) believer to understand some things I really didn't know either. I also appreciate the respect that you have shown to those who don't believe, that is refreshing indeed. That is the approach I want to cultivate as well.
I was an unbeliever myself and so I know what that feels like, and I am so thankful to Jesus for setting this captive free.
Thank you Nerohdam! :o) I know, the Lord delivered me from the very gutter of life and it is a privilege and a pleasure to witness for Him!
I want to give you a real eyeopener to something that is happening in my part of the country (Boston, MA USA) The Holy Spirit is moving through many of the downtrodden and homeless (myself included) and raising us up as witnesses of His glory! It is amazing to watch the events happening in Massachusetts!!! Please keep our area in prayer as revival has begun and is escalating! Praise the Lord!
It is beautiful to watch the LORD take those the world shuns and discards and HE restores and His love heals in ways that people are on fire here! There is a youth fire building here also, even among the colleges here!
As for those who have money and think they don't need God! Well, there is also a movement amongst communities that are considered well-to-do here and The Lord is moving many of us into these areas, through mission churches and many of the affluent are coming to Christ as well!
Money doesn't satisfy and many are looking around and seeing the escalation of violence and madness in this world, and asking; isn't there more to life than this?? Well, God is using people like myself to show them the LOVE of GOD!
Praise the LORD!
To TokenSP: You totally missed the whole point. It is not a religion. I have a real, genuine relationship with Almighty God. You and no one else can invalidate what has happened in my life.
I never have had the relationship that I have with GOD; with any human. You fail to understand GOD is not a man, HE is Spirit and HE is truth! I have NEVER experienced love until I met GOD that was my point.
I learned from a very early age that this world is evil and I am so thankful that Almighty GOD has opened my heart to see Him and to know Him and to finally experience true love, God is love and I realize now that I was so depressed because I was so far away from HIM!
Every human being gropes for HIM whether they acknowledge HIM or not! We are all created to worship something; and if we don't worship GOD, we worship something else, usually ourselves!
See, God is the center of my life now, I used to be the center of my own world, and I am truly thankful that HE loved me so much that HE showed me the way out of this life.
Jesus Christ, is not a religion, HE is GOD and I am HIS witness that HE is real! One day TokenSP and not too far off; every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that HE is LORD!
Thank you Lord God!
Torus:
OK, understood, I see what you’re getting to. I would respectfully put forth that all historical accounts are selective in one way or another; rarely if ever will you have *everything* that happened at a past event. There is a difference between condensing an account and excluding material that produces a different understanding. There is really no reason to conclude that a historian cannot properly arrange events to communicate the truth.
By verified archaeological evidence, I refer to all the documented evidence that backs up the places, peoples, and events of the Bible. For example, in the OT, Sodom, Jericho, etc., are all discovered and explored sites. Ditto the people of the OT like King David and others. As an example in the New Testament, Dr. Colin Hemer’s “The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History” records hundreds of archaeological discoveries that verifies what Luke wrote about in Acts. For example, they have James, Jesus’ brother’s tomb and know exactly how/when he was martyred.
Let me ask you this: for the sake of argument, strip out all the miracles/supernatural descriptions in the Bible. How would you feel about it then?
Thanks again for the dialog.
Schumacr -
Perhaps "poorly interpreted" is a better phrase. Just skimming passages of the OT which are supposed to reference real events leads one to notice that things are so vaguely put and selectively chosen that the correspondence is weak indeed. Throw in the fact that people do and have (over the millennia) acted in accordance with the prophecy and have a preconceived notion which guides their interpretation and trouble abounds!
How is the bible "verified archaeological evidence? It is a set of passaged written by followers of a prophet. It succumbs to the same issues brought up in the previous paragraph.
And making people from mud is scientifically impossible. There are not enough elements in mud to make people. And it would seem to me that the odds are equal of both scenarios if not skewed in that abiogenesis is more likely. Abiogenesis occured for billions of years, while humans have lived for millions. A fraction a very SMALL fraction of the life span of the earth. It was something like 5.5billion years the world was non-existant of animals in general then for a few million years, animals popped up. The theory for life is that RNA constructed itself in nature, RNA being a non-living thing, but it is a very VERY important thing to human beings. RNA produces DNA and that is how life is feasibly possible. It took billions of years for RNA to randomly occur, and the only thing they needed to find was an RNA that would self replicate, and they have found that RNA. And that is where we stand with evolution.
True, but that would mean God doesnt have free will. Seems to me that to say he can do nothing but good is contradictory in practice and putting a limitation on God in theory. My explanation is as thus, saying that God can do no evil means that there are things he cannot create and things he cannot do. This is to say, it is not that he wont do it or that he chooses not to be evil, it is that he cannot do evil. Its contradictory in practice because then you would have to explain why evil exists, why God creatd the devil, why God allows for sin, etc etc. the list goes on. In theory it limits him because God would not have been able to create the devil, if he was unable to do evil. He would not have given Adam and Eve the opportunity to be evil, and evil quite franly would not exist. So God has to be able to do evil, in order to make a world such as ours.
Hi TokenSP. You’ve made a couple of good observations/comments I’d like to respond to.
<<. I offered the example that God could order you to stand on your foot and you had to obey because it would be morally right. They argued well God would never do that, he would only do what is good. Exactly, God commands things that are good because good. He adheres to a universal morality. >>
You are correct in saying that God is not voluntaristic (arbitrary) in nature – being able to, for example, say today lying is bad, but tomorrow it’s OK. However, God does not adhere to a universal morality – He IS that morality. Goodness and therefore the moral law flows from His nature/essence. This is a major differentiator between the God as revealed in the Bible and the god of Islam, which has no such essence and is very much an arbitrary God of voluntarism.
<< Whats more, it amuses me that people will argue that God cant do what is logically impossible but then still say that we were made from mud.>>
But is it any more outlandish to propose that intelligent life arose from a non-intelligent source and that the process was from the goo to the zoo to you? I think it’s far cleaner to believe that an intelligent source created intelligent life. Further, while Christians need just one big miracle for everything, the atheist needs about a billion little miracles to explain everything that we know.
<< Life experiences does not validate religion. >>
Well said; excellent point. Experience can not always serve as the litmus test for truth. Now make no mistake, testimonies that you’ve read from Annie and others are quite real; when I accepted Christ, I changed very much as well - our God is indeed one who transforms lives. But behind that very same God is truth, substance, and the ability to know Him both from his general revelation (nature, logic, reason, philosophy, etc.) and special revelation (the Bible). In short, Christianity rests firmly on content, not wishful thinking or experiential feelings. It is both intellectually robust and experientially satisfying.
Hi again torus. So all the Bible is nothing more than old documents that are poorly translated? First, I’d ask where your proof is that they are poorly translated, because there’s quite a bit of scholarly research that stands contrary to that assertion. Moreover, do you hold all historical documents from antiquity to be dubious or only ones that mix in the concept of God with verified archaeological evidence like the Bible? How do you know anything about history without relying on the recorded eyewitness testimony of those who were there (as in the New Testament)?
I don’t disagree with you that starting from a flawed foundation and working upward/outward from there produces flawed results, but that’s not what we have with the Bible.
AnniefourJesus - you're an inspiration.
TokenSP - anniefourjesus is not talking about religion. She is not even talking about the phrase personal relationship. She is talking about something that is far better and greater.
In regard to religion, how are things going with your Mormon walk?
AnniefourJesus -
You are not delusional. As I am sure you and I are well aware. I minister to the downtrodden and homeless and I know they are probably some of the most realistic people you will ever find. A lot of them know this world and the trappings in this world more than some of you will ever know but as a result they have the eyes to see and ears to hear. The beatitudes are a beautiful thing are they not? :)
Life experiences does not validate religion. All it validates is that religion appeals to emotions like no other. People who have gone through attrocities and violent episodes in their life will be more likely to turn to God than someone who is well off. Why? Because God is some invisible man who is always therefore you and loves you no matter what. When you feel the world has left you behind and your all alone to deal the horrors of reality, you'll always have that invisible man in the sky to turn to who will love you unconditionally and forever. I mean if someone is socially well off having an extra person in their life like God isnt really necessary, but when you've got no one to turn to, God is as good as any. It doesnt take much to produce emotions my dear, simply think of a situation in which you've experienced love, and depending on how good you are at this, that emotion will come rushing back to you. Same thing with God, except that I contend I will boldly state that if you did the same thing with some other imaginary figure you would get the same effect. Life is tragic. I am sorry to hear the tragedy you had to go through. Some of us unfortunately learn how cruel life can be sooner than others. You, unfortunately are one of those people. We deal with tragedy in different ways, some of us need others to be there for us some of us deal better with things by themselves. Getting out of depression from a tragic situation is always good, no matter how you did it, but it does not validate religion.
To Torus: Your criticism does not offend me, I have been called worse in my life and my life today is wonderful. What I shared here was my testimony of my life and what God has done in my life. Believe me Torus, sometimes I wished I had been delusional as I was beaten every day of my life in foster care; and faced other atrocities no child should have to face.
It was the love of God, through Jesus Christ who took this shattered, broken little child and He gave me back my life. I do not care what you or anyone else thinks of me. You call me delusional because I share the truth of my life; and there are so many witnesses in my own life, who can testify as to what Jesus Christ has done in my life, how HE taught me how to FORGIVE the people in my life who did those things to me.
It was a great day of awakening forme to know that GOD is very real, and that I would not have survived one day at the hands of humans, had my Heavenly Father not been there to intercede for me. You call me delusional because you cannot refute my testimony.
Isaiah 44:8
8 Do not fear, nor be afraid;
Have I not told you from that time, and declared it?
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.’”
I pray Torus that one day, just as I did, you will give God a real try. When you seek Him with your whole heart you will find Him. One day you will know for sure, without a doubt that God is indeed very real!
Schumacr -
There problem is that you're creating the big picture. You're starting with (a) a bunch of old documents and poor translations of those documents and (b) a predetermined idea. You're using the documents to support your idea and your idea to interpret those documents Further complicating the issue is the fact that the idea itself has developed partly as a result of other people's (also confused) interpretation of those same documents. It's a vicious self-fulfilling cycle repeated in other religions as well.
I actually havent borrowed that concept from atheists, but from Catholics. I had believed that all religious people believed their religion was based on faith and that they were proud of it, and then I met Christians... What philosophies I live my life by? My own, as influenced by my peers and relatives, most crucially my father who was religious but didnt practice it. I am not afraid to say that I have some of the same morals as taught in Christianity, but I am of the belief and of the conviction that morality transcends religion. I believe that what God commands is good because it is good. Basically God does what is good, not what God commands is good, and use the arguement that it is arbitrary to say that all that God commands is good. Funny enough I have argued this point to a Christian and they only proved my point with out realizing. I offered the example that God could order you to stand on your foot and you had to obey because it would be morally right. They argued well God would never do that, he would only do what is good. Exactly, God commands things that are good because good. He adheres to a universal morality. Maybe he created it, thats up for debate, but its not the point. I understand that arguement for miracles, but that doesnt stop me from not believing in him. He may not try to prove himself to me, but thn I have no reason to believe he exists. Whats more, it amuses me that people will argue that God cant do what is logically impossible but then still say that we were made from mud.
Hi TokenSP. I know why you don’t like Nietzsche, but I’ve always kinda felt sorry for the guy. Dad died of insanity; raised by 5 domineering German gals; major loner, etc. Still, I think we can learn from him. Many aspects of his (borrowed) superman concept were noble, but greatly twisted by military leaders. He also had a keen eye for the ills of society; his prediction of the 20th century being the bloodiest ever (because he said we had killed God) was right on the money. Finally, he was one of few atheists who don’t claim atheism, but then live on borrowed concepts from religion to make life livable. What atheist philosophers do you like?
I understand your comments on faith, but I would respectfully argue they aren’t valid and don’t represent New Testament Christianity at all. First, your reference to “leap of faith” comes from Kierkegaard and not the Bible. Those who oppose Christianity try and redefine the word ‘faith’ because then they can throw it into the “value” part of the Fact/Value dichotomy created by the Greeks and championed still today. Faith is not something you have in the absence of evidence. Hebrews defines faith this way: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1, KJV). The Greek word used in the New Testament is “pistos”, which is derived from the verb “to be persuaded” and means to be persuaded as to something that is true and has authenticity. Greek Lexicons will tell you that pistos means “the state of being someone in whom confidence can be placed”, “reliability”, “conviction of the truth”. You hopefully get the idea.
So having faith does not mean checking your brains at the door and leaping off into the dark unknown. The actual opposite is true – it means an intelligent confidence that is placed in something that is worthy of trust, is reliable, and matches reality. In other words, a step into the light, not a leap into the dark.
Regarding miracles, there are only three recorded periods of time in the Bible you see God using miracles in a major way – the Mosaic, Prophetic (Elijah, etc.), and Apostolic (Christ/apostles) periods. There is a coming period as well – the apocalyptic period. Each time they are used for one purpose alone – to confirm God’s message. A miracle is an act of God sent through a messenger of God to confirm a message of God to the people of God. It is not to satisfy our personal “prove it to me” meter. In fact, Christ recounted a story where a man in Hell asked that a miracle be done for his family who were unbelievers so they would believe. He was told that if they don’t believe the scriptures, they won’t even believe if someone should rise from the dead.
How right he was.
To schumacr
Nietzsche was a horrible guy =/ you shouldnt base atheism on such people. An interesting thing I've noticed about Christianity is that they dwell on the people who convert to Christianity, but ignore the people who leave it... Furthermore I dont understand why Christians no longer say it is based on faith. Ive known and spoken with Catholics a great portion of my life, and all of them will claim it is faith way before they will claim they've evidence to prove it. They simply say one must have faith. Christianity for some reason decided to say that theres evidence, but there is no hard evidence. There is theoretical theology that tries to justify religion through reason and logic, for example claiming the prophecies were right on the dot, but wheres the hard evidence now? Miracles are non existant anymore.. anything that occurs naturally is something that could have occured naturally, what im talking about is turning water into whine... or creating humans from dirt. Those are miracles worth noting. None of that occurs, and we cant see or hear verbally hear God. At some point you have to take a leap of faith... it all comes down to it...
torus:
Thanks for your response and comments. I think you’re not seeing the big picture in the prophecies concerning Christ or really the Old Testament in general, and you’re being too cavalier in dismissing them. The entire Old Testament is one big prediction about Christ, starting in Genesis 3:15. It’s not about the Jews looking around and saying, “Hey, here’s a guy who kinda fits; let’s pick him!” Prophecies like Micah 5:2 are very explicit and targeted; it says that the Messiah will be God Himself. Verse 6 that you reference is a future event too; Assyria is represented as a future nation just as “the land of Nimrod” is a past synonym for Assyria (see Zechariah 12:9 and 14:2-3).
<< One certainly needs enough evidence to know there is a god. Faith is unnecessary however. If the evidence were there, that would be that. >>
Your comment is a very good one - I’m with you 100%. However, I’m afraid that human nature refutes us both on this point. People act contrary to evidence all the time. Folks know how to eat right and exercise – they know it’s proven to be beneficial, yet few do. Many people go off their needed medications (for health or mental reasons) even though they’ve seen the evidence that the medicine makes them better. Drug addicts know the damaging effects of illegal drugs yet they press on with their lifestyle. And on and on… Although I’m not a fan of his theology, I do like Descartes’ description of error – “when the will exceeds understanding.”
A good example of this in religion is the famous atheist Frederick Nietzsche. He said, “If it could be proven to me that God exists, I would believe in Him all the less.” He’s also noted for saying, “It is our preference that rules against Christianity, not arguments.” For Nietzsche, belief is God was very much a matter of the will and not evidence.
This is why I said what I did before – belief is not merely the passage and reception of valid information. It involves action and trust (faith); only when these marry do you have real belief. In the end, there very much is a volitional part to the equation.
torus, thanks again for your comments; I do appreciate your viewpoints.
GMG - This is a public forum on a newspaper's web site. Anyone who posts here is subject to criticism. I was being honest with Annie, I do think she's delusional. If she were spouting like that about, for example, a cult, we'd all be pushing her into deprogramming. The fact that her mania is mainstream does not exempt her in my book.
Schumacr -
Micah 5:2 : The problem is that leaders arise from many places and as I mentioned, we tend to cherry-pick the occurrences which fit our interpretation. If that passage had referred to a different clan (note clan, not town) then believers may simply have picked some other chap. And then in 5:6 I don't remember Jesus wasting the land of Assyria with the sword.
Daniel 9:25-26 : The Hebrew text discusses "an anointed ruler" which was then twisted in King James to "the Messiah". So first, this may not be about Jesus at all and second, quoting lengths of time is subject to the same self-fulfilling issues mentioned in my previous paragraph.
I won't keep going, suffice to say your interpretations are very rigid and seem to be handed to you rather than thought out.
The reason I am eager is that it's clear to me that given all the religions lying around, all the prophets and prophecies, all the people who believe that their line is the straight one, all are subject to the same gaping holes of overzealousness, overlooking of facts, misinterpretation of data, and so on.
One certainly needs enough evidence to know there is a god. Faith is unnecessary however. If the evidence were there, that would be that.
Joebudda and Schumacr - on Luke 24:46, my Bible gives a reference to Hos 6:2, if that helps you all any.
torus - you have no right to use your skepticsm to drop-kick Annie's heart, which she laid out on a platter for you tonight. Disagree all you want, but please at least be civil about it.
torus - Good to talk to you again. First, I really wish you’d quit doing research on www.christianitystinks.com and www.atheistcomfort.org; there are much better resources available… :-) BTW, no offense intended at all; just kidding with you.
OK, so your position is the biblical prophecies are vague. Would you call a prophecy predicting the city where Christ would be born vague (Micah 5:2)? How about the manner in which He would die (hundreds of years before crucifixion), and that His clothes would be gambled for (Psalm 22)? Maybe that He would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12 and 13:6)? Or how about a prediction that started a day-for-day countdown to the actual day Christ would reveal Himself as the Messiah (Daniel 9:25-26; a prophecy so amazing that critics have struggled for years to prove it was written after the fact)? Doesn’t look so vague to me, but I’m open to correction here.
Leaving Christ, how about a prophecy about Alexander the Great – one so potent that Flavius Josephus, Jewish court historian for three Roman Emperors, records in his writings (Antiquities of the Jews XI, viii, 3-5) that Alexander actually received a copy of Daniel 2 and 11’s predictions from the Jews when he annexed Jerusalem in the autumn of 332 BC. And no backdating allowed as Daniel is included in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are dated from about 200 BC. Vague again?
Torus, I want to pause for a minute and tell you that I’m not trying to win a debate with you or trump your last move. If atheism is true; we all need to be atheists. Truth is what counts; the only reason to believe something is because it’s true. But…if Christianity is true, then we should all be Christians. No disrespect, but you seem almost *too* eager to try and trounce any claim for Christ.
I like talking to you and others who are skeptical of God – you challenge me to dig deep and see if what I claim is real is really real, and that’s good. But maybe stop just once and think about your position and don’t lapse back into your comfort zone because you find one link that quickly refutes a Christian claim. And if you have indeed done much research, my apologies for the last statement.
In the end, belief is a matter of the will. One needs evidence to know that there is a God, but then one needs faith to commit oneself to the God the evidence indicates is really there.
Thanks again.
joebudda
No problem questioning things; I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you again.
First, religions can claim prophetic fulfillment all they want; the question is do they have historical evidence to back up their claims as the Bible does? For example, it was only when the Muslims got whipped by the early Christian apologists that they wrote the Hadiths that contain all their miracles. Also, look at “why” the false prophet’s dream comes true in Deut 13:1-3; who’s the real source?
John 7:38 refers to the continuous source of satisfaction that all who turn to Jesus will have. It was not uncommon for Christ to combine Scriptures together like this; various cf’s include Is. 44:3, 55:1, 58:11.
Good question on Luke 24:46. Jesus had earlier told the crowds (who wanted to see a miracle) that no sign would be given them but Jonah. Jonah was 3 days inside the fish, which was a prophetic type of what would happen to Christ – this is where the 3 days reference comes from (another combination of scriptures from Christ).
Your question on Isaiah 7:14 is also a good one. “Almah” does indeed translate “young woman” in the Hebrew. However, nowhere in the Old Testament is it used to reference anyone other than a woman who had not intimately known a man. Further, look at the context – what kind of special “sign” would a woman having sex with a man who produced a baby be? No miracle at all. Finally, when the Septuagint was written/translated from Hebrew, what word did the *non-Christian* Greek translators use for Is. 7:14? “Parthenos” – the exact word used by Matthew in 1:23: a woman who was a virgin.
You’re on good ground on the comment of Paul’s early writings, although Mark and Matthew are from the 50’s as well. I respectfully disagree with the assertion the synoptics were word-for-word copied from each other. Matthew’s gospel was specifically written for the Jews; Luke’s for the Gentiles; and Mark’s were the recordings of Peter’s lectures given to a Roman audience. All written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, all similar but somewhat different from the other, and all closer to the actual events than any other historical document from antiquity. For an excellent treatment of the historical evidence and extra-biblical proofs of the above, I recommend to you David Alan Black’s book, “Why Four Gospels?”
I think it’s great you’re checking Scripture out. Give Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 a read and let me know who it sounds like.
schumacr-
You will notice my skepticism in this one.
In regards to fulfilled prophecies
For starters most of the world’s religious beliefs claim to be true because of fulfilled prophecies. The popular beliefs of the time that the four gospels claim to document had there fulfilled prophecies too. Even your bible acknowledges this, Deut. 13:1-3. Then we have people like Nostradamus that dot our histories.
Assuming the prophecies are indeed “visions” of the future. Does that mean all fulfilled prophecies are divinely influenced? And if the claims of monotheism are correct, all “prophets” for this one god? Or does it not necessary have to be divinely influenced but some kind of natural psychic ability, as the bible eludes to in the Deuteronomy verses? And if this is true what reason is there to believe any fulfilled prophecies are divinely influenced?
Or what about claimed fulfilled prophecies that were never prophesied in the bible?
Like in John 7:38 where Jesus said, “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water”. Nowhere in the bible was this prophesied even though here it is claimed to be fulfilled.
Or how about Luke 24:46. Speaking to his disciples on the night of his resurrection, he said, "Thus it is written and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day.". Paul also writes of this, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. But nowhere in the Old Testament does this “third day” prophecy exist. So what “scripture” are they referring too?
I know of many more but I only have so many characters to use here.
I would like to move onto the “virgin birth” prophecy quickly. Because of the Dead Sea Scrolls we know that “virgin” was a mistranslation from the Hebrew text which means “young woman”. And this translation error people still use as evidence of the divine.
I would also like to fit in the dating of the writings in the New Testament.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
The earliest writings were from Paul. But the said prophecies are claimed to be fulfilled in the gospels and the earliest dating is at least 50 years after Jesus is said to have died. And if you look into the synoptic gospel claims, that much of the gospels were copied word for word form each other. This this undermines the claim that these were first hand accounts. And then this means we can’t trust that these are accurate representations, meaning the “fulfilled prophecies” might have easily be written in during the writing of these gospels for some unknown agenda.
I could go on but I will stop here for now.
anniefourjesus -
You're delusional.
schumacr -
1. I found a great phrase while researching your prophecies - postdiction-retroactive clairvoyance, prediction after the fact. Basically this means that we (well, you) take what are very vague verses and simply interpret them to fit the data.
2. Apparently some prophecies were written after the fact. oops!
3. People have a tendency to act as prophecy dictates they will. It logically follows that if you have a bunch of vague prophecies lying about and if enough people have enough stock invested in those prophecies that they will actually coax those very things to occur.
Your knowledge of statistics might be good but you'd better have good data. You don't.
joebudda
Thanks for taking the time to write back.
<< The best way to answer this question is to present your best evidence and I will either accept it or explain why and give reasons why I reject it. >>
I started to respond to you in a couple of different ways (philosophy, science, history), but have decided to instead respond with, well, my story. My profession is a database engineer; I’m a director of a software company and I’ve always liked statistics and probability. When I was 19 and an engineering student, I got a book on Bible prophecy. For the first time in my life my eyes were opened to how the prophets God used to write the Bible hit the bull’s eye 100% of the time in what they predicted. What really got my attention were the prophecies about Christ. There are about 300 prophecies in the Old Testament that speak about Jesus’ first coming, and by eliminating duplicate prophecies, you get a little over one hundred prophecies that predicted the first coming of the Messiah, written hundreds of years before Christ. And Jesus fulfilled every one of them.
Now being an engineering guy, I knew the odds of this happening by chance – zilch. Peter Stoner, in his book “Science Speaks”, calculated the odds of having just eight prophecies predicted over hundreds of years being fulfilled in the life of one person and arrived at one in 10 to the 17th power. Keep in mind that Jesus didn’t fulfill just eight prophecies, but over one hundred. Now I’d studied stats plenty in college and knew that statisticians acknowledge that anything over 1 in 10 to the 50th power is the same as zero chance, and these odds are exceeded when you get past 20 Messianic prophecies being fulfilled in the life of Jesus.
Of course, Bible critics try everything to explain away the fulfilled Messianic prophecies including the charge that Jesus knowingly did things to fulfill the predictions made about the Messiah. However, this allegation falls flat as many were beyond the ability to be humanly orchestrated (being born in Bethlehem, being from the line of David, being crucified, and of course – rising from the dead!) And the charge that they were rewritten into the Old Testament later is disproved by the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
So that was it for me. I crossed my legs on my parent’s couch and said OK to Jesus. Perhaps the biggest piece of evidence is that if anyone had told me years ago I’d be dialoging with someone in this manner, I’d have told them they were nuts. But here I am.
Yep, I know what I believe is really real. My hope and prayer is you take the time to check things out and reach the same conclusion.
I learned also, that just because God allows things, doesn't mean He approves. What Jesus Christ did for me was to take me out of this kingdom of darkness and transport me into the Kingdom of His Son, Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ, is The Hope of the world, Jesus even said, "if a man came and died, they would not believe." The Heavens declare the glory of God, I can stand out in the evening in Texas and look out across the expanse of sky and KNOW without a doubt that God is not only very real, HE is AWESOME! Beautiful beyond description and I think it is very sad that many many have no vision or heart to want to see Him!
Torus: God has already supplied an abundance of evidence for us to see. It is a question of whether or not we truly want to find Him. A relationship with God is predicated on my believing that He exists first of all. I didn't always believe that He existed. Or if He did, why does He allow children to be so abused?
I have heard all the arguments for God and against God. God Himself tells us, you will find Him, when you seek Him with your whole heart. Jesus Christ is no pied piper. He is Almighty God and I stand here today as a witness that He is God. You can accept or reject this fact, that too is your choice.
In Jesus day, He walked amongst them, and He did things NO man has ever done, and He was resurrected, and 500 EYEwitnesses saw Him and yet people in His own time, denied Him.
Man's intellectual arguments really give me quite a headache. It wasn't any human that came to my defense, or my aide as a broken down child, abused, it was the Lord God Himself.
He used to come and be with me and my siblings, when our young and poor mother would leave us alone, I know His presence. Over the years, with abuse and the evil done to me by humans, it was God who led me all through that and today, I walk with Him, with a new heart, and a new Spirit.
NO man has ever died for me but Jesus Christ did, and HE is Lord! Budda didn't come to me, Jesus Christ came to me. I learned first hand that man's reasoning is FLAWED, not God's!
You were not there either torus, and joebudda, Jesus Christ was there! :o) I am HIS witnesses that He is God and there are many of us, who are standing up for the Lord and giving our testimonies.
So, you can and probably will dismiss what I am saying, but God knows that I speak the truth in love. My prayer is that one day you will at least give HIM a chance. It is about Faith, the just shall live by faith!
holito8-
I don’t believe you were able to show how I was mistaken, this is why.
[[“The test only show what is measurable not that you are "free and clear."]]
Yes but the point was that we use absence of evidence as evidence of absence all the time. Here is another example, lets say I presented you what looked and in everyway appeared to be an empty fishbowl and told you there was a fish in it. You would think I was mad. You would look at that empty fishbowl and conclude there is no fish in it. This is using this method. You are not seeing any evidence of the fish so then you conclude there is no fish because there is no evidence of the fish.
[[“Tell me. Have you seen a lion construct a house or fly a plane. A lion obey the laws he was given and does not depart from them.”]]
This type of reasoning is disingenuous; also know as “stacking the deck” to favor you. I will show you using reasoning along the same lines.
Have you ever seen a human run as fast as a cheetah or swim as fast as a shark?
All species have their attributes that separate them from the other species. Of course you wish the attributes you hold are better then the ones other animals hold. But really all we are doing by such reasoning is falling pray to our own arrogance.
And regarding all of your “devil” claims.
Before I can accept this “devil” of yours, do you have any tangible evidence that it even exists? Because I have not been convinced that this “devil” of yours does indeed exist. And if there is no reliable evidence of this “devil” of yours then why should I accept your claims that you attribute to this “devil”. As far as I know you can be falling pray to your own confirmation bias, thereby attributing these things to this “devil” and thus preventing you from seeing the “real” causes.
schumacr -
The reason I'm not "coming to grips" with your straight line analogy is that the analogy is flawed for many reasons. One, the definition of "straight" is not fixed, it depends upon the situation, so any analogy is tenuous at best. Two, your decision to make your "god" the "metric" is arbitrary, just as me drawing a curvy line and calling it "straight" is arbitrary. It may be "a" metric but it is far from "the" metric. There is no definitive "straight".
As far as belief systems' criteria, I'm not personally giving thumbs ups or downs as to what's valid, just what's rational and what has evidence. This is an objective evaluation which extends to picking apart others' systems.
As regards your comment about reasonable answers and my comment about God, my point was that once you accept the supernatural then you don't get to argue rational things about it. If I were to believe that tiny elves lived in my shoes I don't get to follow that up with requirements for the elves themselves. Your rational requirements are meaningless since they're predicated on the assumption of a supernatural being.
Lastly, as regards Crick, I asked for something peer-reviewed (qualitative science), not the musings of one man (however bright) about something he didn't fully understand when he developed it. DNA has evolved (I read a fascinating article about retrovirus fragments in the New Yorker yesterday, check it out) just as language has and just as we have.
Jesus has played not flute for me. There is no evidence, not one bit, for any gods. You have yet to provide one scrap.
Cheers.
Schumacr-
Once again, I wish you a good day.
[[”My question to you would then be: what type of evidence would be persuasive to you in terms of considering that God exists?”]]
I guess it would depend on the evidence and how reliable it is. The best way to answer this question is to present your best evidence and I will either accept it or explain why and give reasons why I reject it.
[[“But there must be a way (and a necessity) to transcend this moral relativism, wouldn’t you say?”]]
Not to sure what you mean by “transcend”. But I know open dialogue works. Think of it this way, slavery was a “good” thing until people who didn’t think so had the freedom to give their reasons why they didn’t slavery was “good”. And it what through this open dialogue that allowed people to present their cases that ended up persuading the majority that slavery isn’t a good thing.
[[“when has your dog/cat ever prayed for you? Only man looks upward to a transcendent.”]]
To be honest I am having trouble taking this seriously. But I think you are presenting a type of ontological argument. I don’t find these kinds of arguments persuasive because we can “dream up” anything, and because we can dream it up does that then mean it must be true?
Think of it this way, if I told you that I can imagine an omniscient shade of green does that them mean that shades of green are omniscient?
This is why I can not accept these types of ontological arguments. We can replace the god with anything and the argument stands just as well.
Regarding practicing what one believes?
I can only take someone’s word for what they claim to believe. I know there are all kinds of Christianity, some believe “works” are the most important element for salvation, while others believe all you need to do is believe. I know they both can be support with the bible depending on how it is interpreted. So I don’t believe it is my place to judge.
Joebudda, you are mistaken in your comments:
If there isn’t a god, being there is no reliable evidence for one, then this god can not be killed. And if we are to use this absence of evidence as evidence of absence, as we do with pretty much everything else.
Study the test again or ask a doctor for evaluation. The test only show what is measurable not that you are "free and clear." Don't take stock. One day there no cancer; Pow, next day you might have a spot. Now do get me wrong that wasn't magic, just biology or maybe.
From prides of lions to hives of bees we see these behaviors. Seems like a very human trait from our perspective, but we seemingly want to believe that we are have the monopoly on these types of altruism. We can even see this cross species altruism, think of the stories where the family dog puts itself in harms way to protect a member of the family. This is one of the subjects I have invested hours of research in, so I don’t want to go on for too longs, I will answer questions if you have them or cite sources of need be.
Tell me. Have you seen a lion construct a house or fly a plane. A lion obey the laws he was given and does not depart from them. He can be trained but as zologist tell you he's still a wild animal. Research is good if you understand(wisdom) the data (knowledge).
But does belief in a god mean they are more likely to behave more morally? According to the statistics, the contrary seems to be true. If we look at violent crime rates, by either state or by country it seems the more religious the population of the location is the higher the crime rate is. I am not making any judgments, just stating what the statistics show. And this holds true whether you look by state or by country, though there are the anomalies as with anything.
Good you notice something important. What you see is Christian are under a great strain than non-Christians. Does a sheriff go his jail to arrest someone or does he go outside the jail? What I mean is this. The devil goes to and fro looking to whom he can devour. Now he does not seek those who are his already but those who are not. If he is in a battle with God, what people would he be seeking? Insert wisdom here.
Now the devil does not make them commit sin. He only makes the offer. Christians can fall to this temptation because it is ever present or continuous. I'm not excusing a person for sinning. He or she has to take the offer. The consequences is jail. God sees the sin and must act accordingly. Be not decieved God is not mocked. Christian or non Christian, God's law is univeral.
torus –
I find your comments very insightful and interesting – thanks for writing back.
Unfortunately, you’ve missed my point on what happens when man denies God (time becomes eternity, etc.), so I won’t return to that ground.
For whatever reason, you’re also not coming to grips with my argument that you can’t call something crooked unless you have an absolute an unchanging standard of straightness (the metric is God). At least you admit that it’s man who sets the rules when there is no God: “*we* must define and understand the underlying criteria…”
I find your arguments against the criteria for belief systems very telling. First, you say I have no right to propose tests for belief (who am I after all…) and yet you feel quite comfortable seating yourself in the judge’s chair and giving the thumbs down as to what qualifies and what doesn’t.
Next, whenever I talk to atheists or skeptics like yourself, I always hear the same three arguments: (1) Religion isn’t rational (2) There’s no evidence for God (3) God doesn’t matter anyway. And yet, when a reasonable system is put forth that includes all the requirements, you say it’s laughable to think such a thing is needed. But if I came to you and said, “Hey, I believe in something that isn’t logical and rational, has absolutely no proof that it’s true, and won’t make one difference in your life – want to join me?”, you’d try and have me locked up.
This reminds me of a statement Jesus made about His generation, who he found just couldn’t be satisfied. He said, “We played a flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.” (Matthew 11:17). There’s just no pleasing some people it seems.
You say I like to have my cake and eat it too, but you seem to exert quite a bit of effort jumping over to whatever side of the fence you need to avoid God. You want reasonable and evidential answers, but when you get them, you say that God needn’t adhere to logic, evidence, and coherency. You say incoherency is perfectly fine, but then demand coherent answers in your life and to your questions.
Regarding DNA, will the co-discoverer of DNA (Francis Crick) work? In his book, “Life Itself” (which talks about directed panspermia), Crick puts forth the argument that DNA shows such intelligence, that the only way it could exist is if it was placed here by extraterrestrial life. Feel free to also check out Collins book “The Language of God”, although you won’t likely esteem it as it has a skeptic moving from non-belief to belief because of DNA.
Thanks again for the dialog – I appreciate you taking the time to make your opinions known on these important subjects.
schumacr -
Okay, so man becomes the standard. So? This is not EVIDENCE of the supernatural. Man (as a whole, individuals notwithstanding) is perfectly capable of stepping up to bat, ye of little faith.
Regarding the line, you're not making your point for two reasons:
1. You have no EVIDENCE that your line is straight, you're just taking your position and defining the word from it. It's as if I drew a squiggly line and called it "straight" and demanded that all other lines which wish to be straight conform to that line. This is what you're doing.
2. The analogy is in my favor since the word "straight" is devoid of meaning without a context. Straight in Euclidean versus hyperbolic geometry? What's your metric? Do these questions make sense? Similarly as regards moral and ethical direction, we must define and understand the underlying criteria and then "straight" emerges. Those underlying criteria arise from my aforementioned rationality.
Lastly, as regards your belief systems' three tests, they're junk since passing human-tests is an inadequate criteria for a supernatural result. Who says YOU get to decide the tests? Why must a belief system make a difference to you? Maybe god doesn't care about YOU personally. It's possible. Why must there be proof? Why must it be logical? Are you suggesting that an all-powerful being can't create a universe with no proof of his reason for doing so and devoid of logic? I'd think that an all-powerful being could do this easily. Why must it be consistent? Are you suggesting that an all-powerful being can't be inconsistent? What nerve you have!
The trouble is you want to have your cake and eat it to. You want to come across like you're applying rational arguments but you don't actually want to apply them. Your arguments are just coherent enough to sound reasonable while being fluffy enough to try to escape analysis. Analysis picks them to pieces.
In closing, provide me with a reference that implies that DNA mirrors language in a sense which implies an intelligent creator. Any single scientific peer-reviewed paper will suffice.
(I flagged my own previous post due to an error.)
Torus –
Good comments and questions. When I say “man becomes the standard”, I mean the standard by which everything is measured as opposed to God being the standard by which goodness and truth is measured. By the soul, I refer to the fact that there is, for the atheist, no spiritual aspect to man – the body/mind is all there is. And for time/eternity, I mean that the time in this world is all you’ve got; eternity does not exist for the atheist; when you die, that’s it.
<< After all, religion doesn't offer any better and would demand my dignity in return, not to mention my foregoing of rational thought.>>
IMO, your dignity is only preserved by God; otherwise you’re just another animal with no special meaning or worth. In addition, I’m sure I don’t need to quote the racism in Darwin’s thoughts that were fueled by Huxley (and most recently was echoed by James Watson. I also maintain the position that God gets to your heart through your mind, so reason, logic, and God mix quite nicely; in fact, they have to.
<<, we just need to understand what "straight" means. >>
Good point. Which is exactly what I was attempting to convey. Who decides what “straight” means and could its definition change? If so, who makes that determination? You, me, a group of folks – who? And then from where does its enforcement come?
<< There is no evidence to suggest that your I-am-straight-because-I-say-so religious line is any straighter than mine. >>
In making this statement, you’ve just come over to my side of the ‘how do you decide between moral positions argument’. An absolute is required is it not? But the dilemma is how to find it/decide on it if you don’t believe in an unchanging moral standard like God.
<< banging them over the head with a calculus textbook until they accept it. >>
My 2nd year calculus prof almost did this to me; scary guy… :-)
<< So give me some evidence as a nonbeliever that Christianity is true but Buddhism isn't and Jainism isn't and ...>>
OK, I’m likely running out of space here, but quickly… All belief systems must pass 3 tests: logical consistency (no contradictions, incoherence), empirical adequacy (is there logical, physical proof), and existential relevancy (does it make a difference in my life). The pantheistic faiths you mention fail tests one and two for me. They fail the first test because their end goal is the elimination of desire, but yet you must have a ‘desire’ to get rid of desire – so it becomes logically inconsistent and self-defeating. Next, they fail the 2nd test because the universe is not eternal and hence, their pantheistic deity who *is* the universe cannot be eternal. Ultimately, the major differentiator for me is Christ (His life, resurrection, etc.)
<<DNA…. It's not like a language >>
But that was my original point – it is. Mathematically, the ATCG of DNA mirrors human language perfectly. No analogy or similarity, but the real deal.
Joebudda:
First, you’ve definitely got some good points that need to be recognized and deserve thought. Here are some more thoughts from me:
<< this is just one example where we use absence of evidence as evidence of absence.>>
Good point, and understood. My question to you would then be: what type of evidence would be persuasive to you in terms of considering that God exists?
<< I view “good and evil” as subjective value judgments we give to things … All evidence suggests that our morals seem to be both genetic and social >>
I understand what you mean; in some cultures they help their neighbors and in others they eat them; which would we prefer? But there must be a way (and a necessity) to transcend this moral relativism, wouldn’t you say? For example, during the Nuremberg trials, the Nazi’s whole defense was built around the argument that they were just following orders and the cultural laws of the land. Then came the famous statement by one of the judges: “But gentlemen, is there not a Law above our laws?”
Morals must deal with 3 questions, which are somewhat like ships sailing (a C.S. Lewis metaphor). The ships must first not bump into each other (social ethics); second they must stay afloat themselves (individual ethics); and lastly, they must know the reason and purpose they are at sea in the first place. It’s this last question that I don’t think atheism answers very well.
<< Seems like a very human trait from our perspective, but we seemingly want to believe that we are have the monopoly on these types of altruism >>
Another good point. I would, however, ask: when has your dog/cat ever prayed for you? Only man looks upward to a transcendent. Now, some have objected to this point and said the dog is smarter, but then I always ask how that is if we are the most highly evolved animal.
<< if we look at prison populations, there are much more religious then there are atheist by percentage >>
Interesting statistics – thanks for passing them along. A couple of thoughts…First, I would wonder about the “people claim the religion of their culture” argument that’s normally used to question Christianity as being the one correct faith. In other words, do they truly practice/believe what they claim? Next, are these pre or post results (many claim to “find religion” in prison). But I do see your point.
Ironically, though, this somewhat underscores Christianity’s message. All other religions are “DO”, while Christianity is “DONE” (by Christ). There’s nothing we can do to earn God’s favor; He was kind enough to do all the work for us, and for a bum like me, that’s great news. Ultimately, we must concede and admit that living a ‘good/moral/upright’ life is not the ultimate litmus test for determining spiritual or atheistic truth – it is based on something much greater.
Thanks again for the good comments.
Well, I'm not worried about this. Sometime soon, everybody's going to see Jesus, and the idea of hating/denying the supernatural will be a thing of the past. Just keep preaching the Gospel so that the seeds will be planted. God will do the rest.
schumacr -
No, I don't necessarily agree with your three things. (1) What does this mean, "man becomes the standard"? What standard? The judge of things, perhaps. Is that evidence for a god? (2) What is "the soul"? (3) What does "time becomes eternity" mean? Time is (seems to be) one dimension of a four-plus-dimensional structure known as the universe. How does a dimension "become" something?
When various "happinesses" collide we have to work out the middle ground as intelligent beings. I don't claim to have dibs on a perfect solution, only the understanding that we can construct a reasonable framework to live in. After all, religion doesn't offer any better and would demand my dignity in return, not to mention my foregoing of rational thought.
As regards your weak straight-line metaphor, this falls apart because in order to draw a straight line we don't need to compare it to another straight line, we just need to understand what "straight" means. In mathematics the idea of "zero curvature" applies and in the real world one can readily appreciate that simple internal calculations may lead us to a decent, functional (almost straight) life.
But furthermore, with religion all you get is a line which claims to be straight. Every line looks straight if you narrow your view enough and focus on an individual point and zoom in. There is no evidence to suggest that your I-am-straight-because-I-say-so religious line is any straighter than mine.
In fact if I teach my students what zero-curvature means then they can determine if any line is straight on their own. That's better than presenting them with a line, telling them it's straight and banging them over the head with a calculus textbook until they accept it.
So give me some evidence as a nonbeliever that Christianity is true but Buddhism isn't and Jainism isn't and ...
As regards DNA as a language, you're mistaken. What's meant by that analogy is that DNA contains the information of an organism much like language contains the information of a communication system. It's not like a language in that it arises from intelligence and there's no proof that it is. Flawed analogy.
Schumacr-
Good day to you.
Regarding morals.
If there isn’t a god, being there is no reliable evidence for one, then this god can not be killed. And if we are to use this absence of evidence as evidence of absence, as we do with pretty much everything else.
An example would be if we take an HIV test, lets say 50 times, and every time it comes back negative we then assume we don’t have HIV, this is just one example where we use absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
If we don’t assume a god exists, which is all I see a belief in god is, an assumption, then man is his own “measure”, irregardless if people believe in a god or not.
I view “good and evil” as subjective value judgments we give to things and/or behaviors. I know of no reliable evidence of them being magical forces, if that is what you are alluding too.
All evidence suggests that our morals seem to be both genetic and social.
Genetic evidence is all other social species we see around the world. We don’t see social species killing members of their own “in-group” off, we see them looking out for each other and even putting themselves in harms way to protect the “in-group”. From prides of lions to hives of bees we see these behaviors. Seems like a very human trait from our perspective, but we seemingly want to believe that we are have the monopoly on these types of altruism. We can even see this cross species altruism, think of the stories where the family dog puts itself in harms way to protect a member of the family. This is one of the subjects I have invested hours of research in, so I don’t want to go on for too longs, I will answer questions if you have them or cite sources of need be.
Social based morals, this seems to be self evident when examined with a critical eye. We see morals differ from culture to culture. Here in the US most people believe that the death penalty is a “good” thing, where as in many other countries the majority see the death penalty as a barbaric subhuman behavior.
But does belief in a god mean they are more likely to behave more morally? According to the statistics, the contrary seems to be true. If we look at violent crime rates, by either state or by country it seems the more religious the population of the location is the higher the crime rate is. I am not making any judgments, just stating what the statistics show. And this holds true whether you look by state or by country, though there are the anomalies as with anything.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes
Even if we look at prison populations, there are much more religious then there are atheist by percentage. What I mean by this is there are around 15% who claim to be atheist in the United States and only around 0.209% who say they are atheist in prison.
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
torus -
Thanks for your comments. I'll do my best to explain what I meant. If you do away with the concept of God and man/this life is all there is, then 3 things happen: (1) man becomes the standard (2) the body becomes the soul (3) time becomes eternity. Any disagreement?
Now, historically how well have men and governments done when they set the standard and don't appeal to a transcendent standard (as America has - all men are endowed by their Creator...etc.)? Not real well have they? Sometimes it's slow in coming and sometimes quick, but eventually things go downhill. Why? Because they have no unchanging standard to adhere to and they can create their own moral reality. Or as someone has said, "justice is the interest of the stronger party."
<<there is no by-default "good" or by-default "evil">>
I disagree of course, but using your worldview, I understand what you mean.
<<certain simple starting points like wanting to be happy>>
OK, let's start there. Yours or my happiness? What happens when my desire for happiness collides in conflict with your desire to be happy? Who decides or what standard do you appeal to then? Or is it when happiness is experienced by the majority of people - is that acceptable? That's what the Epicureans taught - what is today commonly called utilitarianism - the most happiness for all + the least pain for all = what is best.
You see, you have no standard - it's an antinomian stance. You can't call a line crooked because you have no unchanging straight line to measure it. Your straight edge could always change. The end then justifies the means; killing becomes OK if it helps the masses reach some communist utopia like Stalin hoped.
<<Ponder that before hopping on your judeo-christian high horse.>>
Actually, I don't like horses at all... :-) The reason I'm a Christian is because I have indeed examined the evidence and have both intellectually and willfully concluded that Christianity is true over other belief systems. You see, a person can use smokescreens and say there isn't enough evidence (that's what David Hume said he'd tell God if he ever met Him - not enough evidence), but there's plenty available if you'll just consider it. Every day, more becomes available. For example, I think you were on another thread where we talked about DNA - now that it's been mathematically proven that DNA is identical to a language (not similar or analogous to, but identical), and that no language has ever risen that was not the product of intelligence, how can you or anyone else say that no intelligence is behind it?
Thanks for the dialog - I appreciate your comments.
Being a Christian for me means that I accept and believe what God did on the Cross through Jesus Christ; It is all what God has done, not one thing I have done, well, except for my sin!
In all our years we could NEVER come up with a GOD like the Almighty CREATOR, HE is beyond any description man can ever come up with. HE is not defineable nor can man READ HIS MIND!
Mankind is so arrogant and it is pride that got us in this mess in the first place. Man puts himself on the throne where only God belongs. Now, I believe God because I have in my 50 years seen the difference between what GOD says and what man says!
Guess what: God says in His word, one day men will kill other men, thinking they do God a favor!
Think outside the BOX, God is NOT a man, HE is beyond this earth and heavens, since as the Word says, HE is bringing a new Heavens and a new Earth; that really gets my attention, to the VASTNESS of GOD! and the smallness of myself!
Man's knowledge really no longer impresses me, when I look to Jesus Christ and see what God has done for us even while we were still His enemies! For His Glory!
Jesus Christ is not a religion, He is God; and He has told man what His purpose in coming to the earth was all about.
Men can believe God or reject what He says. This does not negate the Word of God!
God is The Author of life and I am so thankful that He is. If I truly believed that there was no God; and having been an abused child; I did flirt with that belief somewhat as a child and even into my young adult life.
Honestly folks, it is the love of God and the revelation of the life of Jesus Christ; take a look at His life and how He was when He walked this earth and you try and compare Him to anyone else.
The revealed knowledge that this is my GOD; my Creator; who came down from The Heavens and rescued me from the PIT OF HELL that I was in; and He has filled me with a joy and a love that I never got from any human!
This is purely God; HE alone changes the hearts, minds, and attitudes. If you want to not believe Him, you go right ahead! I for one am so eternally thankful that HE did whatever HE had to do, to get my attention so I can really know Him.
Atheist = Sunday School = oxymoron of the greatest version (if parents are teaching their own children good morals, etc. why do you need a school to do so?) just a question
Schumacr -
You don't know what you're talking about. You can't "kill God" because the concept of a god or gods is vague and not universal. Perhaps what you mean is that you can't remove a faith-based belief system from the world, is that it? And if so, why not? Why do you think that some specific individual will be in power? This does not logically follow. Explain.
As regards moral frameworks and good and evil, you're confusing two points. There is no by-default "good" or by-default "evil" but that's not the same as suggesting that mankind is not intelligent enough to develop a moral framework based on certain simple starting points like wanting to be happy, not hungry, and so on. Such frameworks are fairly obvious in my book and don't require any "decider" of the rules from the outside; perhaps you simply don't understand them adequately? And in any case, even if your claim were true, this isn't positive proof for any particular religion.
E=MC^2 simply states that matter and energy are interchangeable. How that rule manifests itself in any particular system is system-dependent.
As regards eternity being a long time to be wrong, you're right, so you'd best be careful about your non-evidence-based faith there, it could get you into hot water for eternity. You have no way of knowing, of course, if you are correct. Maybe you should be a buddhist working on dharma practice for your next life? Ponder that before hopping on your judeo-christian high horse.
joebudda -
Thanks again for the comments. Let me try and explain what I mean about Stalin and the others. If you kill God, then man assumes His throne - man becomes the measure of all things. But the question then becomes, which 'man' is it going to be? You can bet it isn't going to be you or me - it'll be the ones who are in power.
Next, without God there is no absolute moral framework to look back on, which then complicates the above situation. I've heard some atheists say this isn't true, but if you read folks like Dawkins and others who have worked this thinking through to the end, they arrive at the conclusion that there really is no good or evil. Why? If there’s such a thing as evil, you assume there’s such a thing as good. If you assume there’s such a thing as good, you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil (as C.S. Lewis said - you can't recognize a crooked line unless you know what a straight one looks like). If you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver, but that’s whom the atheist is trying to disprove and not prove. So now rewind: if there’s not a moral law giver, there’s no moral law. If there’s no moral law, there’s no good. If there’s no good, there’s no evil.
And if there's no evil and no authority because God is dead, we now arrive at the atrocities we've been discussing.
<<So Einstein shows that ... energy ... can not be created or destroyed>>
I guess I have to admit my confusion here as I see the 1st law as a philosophical dogmatic statement; we can't actually observe it. From what I've read, E=MC2 seems to prove the non-eternality of the universe, and not the reverse.
<<This means I will withhold my emotional and personal investment until I am persuaded otherwise. >>
A perfectly intelligent and wise decision IMO - I agree with you 100%. Looking at the evidence and verifying things is absolutely the right thing to do because, in the end, eternity is an awfully long time to be wrong. This is one of the reasons I like a verse in the Bible that says, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1, KJV). For me, becoming a Christian didn't mean checking my brains at the door, but instead embracing something that is quite intellectually robust and satisfying.
This is just another piece of evidence for what rational Christians have said all along; that atheism is, in fact, another religious belief system.
The choice is clear: believe in God, or believe in yourself. But away with the fallacy, indeed hypocrisy, that humanism/atheism is not another form of religious belief.
As Socrates said to a leading Cynic of his day, "I can see your vanity through the holes in your cloak."
Moderation -
You need some of your own name. Did you read joebudda's post? The point is that atheism is not a cause that people have killed for. Simply being an atheist is not the reason. I'm sure that Stalin didn't believe in pink unicorns either but his lack of belief in pink unicorns didn't prompt him to kill millions. Neither did his lack of belief in the existence of ten-ton chocolate bars or, as you suggest, his lack of belief in god.
Contrast this to all the killing that has been done specifically in the name of various gods and you'll start to see the problem. Whether these killers were misinterpreting the religion on question or not is neither here nor there (when faith and the lack of critical thinking are present, who's to know what's right?), the point is they killed in the name of their gods.
I always ask myself, if we are the ones who design our own Gods? If I read the bible and call myself a christian then I´m no better man, but I´m forgiven and called to become more and more like Christ - become a mature christian.
If I start to decide what is true and what is not in the bibles saying, then who do I think I am?
The bible is clear about itself, believe it or not, but what is it worth to pick what I like and leave or change what I dislike?
moderation-
If I am understanding you correctly, are you insinuating that if what I think isn't what you think then I shouldn't express what I think? But if we don't question and test what we think how can we know if we are correct or not?
Because it seems me to be something along those lines. If not then I apologize.
We should encourage questioning and alternate views, and demand them to be supported, not the suppression of them. If we allow that then we are one step away form totalitarianism. I prefer having intellectual freedom if you are asking for my opinion on the matter.
evolution was God's way of creating the universe. Evolution is the answer to how, not the answer to why we are here. It is not antireligious, and Genesis uses metaphors to show us how to live our lives.
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
people's feelings
joebudda, I do get angry, but please stop saying these things. It hurts people.
People will be just as hostile with or without religion
moderation-
How very Christian of you.
That is okay, I forgive you.
STALIN, THE MAN WHO KILL ED FIFTY MILLION PEOPLE, WAS ATHEIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Atheists say Hitler was Christian, but, oh lets see, Communism was formed by an atheist, practiced by an atheist, and the brutal killing it produced were performed by atheists.
So, joebudda,
DONT YOU RUN YOUR MOUTH ABOUT THINGS YOU DONT UNDERSTAND.
You are spouting hatespeach, and it is wrong, to say the least. You are a hypocrite
schumacr-
Regarding Hitler.
You are making assumptions you can not support. The most we can do is take his word on it, the same goes for anyone really. But it really doesn’t matter if he was Christian or not. What is important to note is he used Christianity to convince Christians to partake in the atrocities they committed. This is why dogma is dangerous, we should all question, even more so when we are told not too.
What is this “atheist belief” that Stalin and the others were living to the letter? Is it Communism? Because it was Marxist Communism that they were “pushing”. Once again this falls back to unquestionable dogma, not atheism.
What is atheism?
It is “not theism“, that is it. So it is not something, it is nothing really. It is a label that people like you pretend is “something” though it is really “not something”, in this case not theism. It is like labeling someone who doesn’t believe in karma as an akarmaist. Because they don’t believe in karma does that automatically mean they are, lets say, Big Foot believers? Of course not, that would be silly.
So the term atheist is an illusion of language. Being the label exist it gives the illusion it is something. When in reality it isn’t something.
Yes it is the first law, good catch.
Well regarding this law, energy can only be changed. And you are correct the universe is “cooling off”. This is where Einstein comes into the picture. This is explained as the energy is changing into mass as E=MC^2 shows. So what we seem to be observing is the universe changing occurring to the laws of physics.
So Einstein shows that mass is energy (so to speak), and energy can only change, meaning it can not be created or destroyed. This shows that the universe in one form or another has always been, according to the evidence. The evidence being the laws of physics itself. So realistically the universe isn’t “running down” it is only changing.
Regarding what I believe, I believe in all kinds of things. But regarding the worlds theistic views, you can think of me as a skeptic. This means I will withhold my emotional and personal investment until I am persuaded otherwise. If this Christian does exist he should know what will convince me, so the ball is in his court.
joebudda -
Thanks for your comments. Now, let's look at your claims a little...
<<Hitler was a Christian.>>
Sorry, Hitler morphed into whatever suited his purpose. On the one hand, he used Marten Luther to argue against the Jews and then used Nietzsche and his atheistic beliefs/superman concepts to work toward his ultimate goal. I could claim to be an atheist if I wanted, but that wouldn't make me one, because I don't truly practice that belief system. Same goes for Adolf.
<<And if the third law of thermal dynamics is correct, stating that mass/energy can not be created or destroyed.>>
Um, that would be the first law...
<<If Einstein was correct that mass can become energy and vise versa. Which all evidence supports this.>>
Check out the second law - the amount of usable energy is running down. The universe is like a dying flashlight. If you doubt this, look in the mirror - you're running down. And what's running down can't be eternal. Furthermore, it was Einstein's theory of relativity and his famous fudge factor that drove him from being a pantheist to a theist. No amount of historical revisionism can wipe this fact away.
<<Then the universe has always existed in one form or another.>>
And your proof for this is...?
<<The reason being atheism is "not theism", so it isn't something, isn't isn't an ideology, it isn't a belief, it is a label theist pinned on people whom didn't believe their fantastic claims. It would be silly to kill for nothing.>>
So you believe in ... nothing? Interesting. And I noticed you jumped right over Stalin and the others who were living out the atheist belief to the letter. You see, without God there is no moral law. No moral law means anything goes (as dostoevsky wrote). Now I'm not saying atheists kill folks because they're atheists; I'm saying atheists have no reason not to. This is exactly what Darwin feared - if everything comes by tooth and claw, what will man become he asked. Nietzsche saw the same thing - he predicted that because we had killed God, the 20th century would be the bloodiest in the history of mankind. Was he right?
For the first time - and this is the really scary thing - we have a new breed of atheist who, unlike Darwin and Nietzsche who feared what their ideology would bring, are prepared to live with the consequences of atheism's philosophy when it's fully lived out.
Richard Dawsons: maybe we shouldn't teach children anything, for fear of extreamism. Things like manners, how to walk, telling the truth, communication, how to read, and anything else may be taken too far!
OH Yea, I almost forgot, my comment about the article itself:
so... a philosophical morality system that doesn't have a god is called "Ethics" and it is taught at a "Secular Sunday School" ???
HampsteadPete:
The only way you can prove your point is to prove your point!
Right now, all you are banking on, is that teaching children that there is no god... ...will do what???
(Do you need further counciling?)
Regarding the "eternal universe".
If Einstein was correct that mass can become energy and vise versa. Which all evidence supports this.
And if the third law of thermal dynamics is correct, stating that mass/energy can not be created or destroyed. Once again all evidence supports this.
Then the universe has always existed in one form or another. The big bang is just he furthest back we can look in its current form.
Please take some time and learn something about what you are claiming before you push it as meaningful in anyway.
schumacr
I am not really understanding your point. For starters according to Hitler, Hitler was a Christian.
And everyone else was killing for their Ideologies they were using to control others. In these cases their Ideology was Marxism in its various forums. Just as Christianity is an Ideology that has been used as a tool to control others. So it is dogma that is the enemy, not atheism or theism.
I know you are attempting to insult atheists by such a poorly researched post, but I don't believe anyone has killed for atheism. The reason being atheism is "not theism", so it isn't something, isn't isn't an ideology, it isn't a belief, it is a label theist pinned on people whom didn't believe their fantastic claims. It would be silly to kill for nothing.
So please get your facts straight so we do continue to propagate such lies.
Thank you.
What makes you so sure atheists don't abuse their children?
Just because you haven'ot heard of any such situation in your neighborhood doesn't mean it doesn't happen in your lame secular state.
Of course you are keeping track of the religious preferences of those who are guilty of child abuse?
How about a itemized full report concerning the comparisons of criminal behavior compared to the religious preferences of the convicted. And, so forth and so on...
Does anyone in the workline of the criminal jusice system consider the necessity to referrence the religious affiliation of the accused?
Goldeneagle - Thanks for the kind words. Chesterton's some tough sledding (as a read) for sure, but it's worth it.
HampsteadPete - have you really looked at the evidence yourself? You don't have an eternal universe to fall back on, so where do you turn for the explanation of everything you see? If everything that had a beginning (like the universe) has a cause, then the universe has a cause. What is it?
Regarding creation being a myth and fairy tale: When I was in kindergarten, they told me that a frog turning into a prince was a fairy tale; then when I got into high school biology, they told me it was a fact.
anniefourjesus:
I love you lady.
"So why dont you stop and leave us christians alone."
I did - for 57 years 'cause you pretty much left me alone. Quietly, right under our noses, you almost got away with setting up a theocracy in the first, and thus far only republic that was specifically set up to make such things impossible.
The first amendment is quite self-explanatory, and until King George, it worked pretty well. From comforting the nervous Danbury Baptists, who were fearful of the Congregationalists in Connecticut, to eliminating prayer in the public schools, it has steadfastly defended the rights of both the religious and the non-religious, as the founders intended.
Now, you want to return religion to the public schools, beginning with the teaching of your silly creation myth. As was beautifully illustrated during the Dover trial, teaching creationism, in any form, is only the opening wedge of a comprehensive strategy aimed at nothing less then the complete repeal of the enlightenment, and a return to the dark ages.
If I sound like some conspiracy nut, it's because you don't have a full appreciation of what the directors of this "movement" really want to do. It's all about control, of course, and religion has been using fear and ignorance to control populations ever since the first witch doctor started blaming "gods" for lightning and disease.
You want me to leave me alone? I shall, just as soon as you leave me alone by ceasing to support efforts aimed at subverting the principals this country was founded on, including the separation of church and state.
jsanturce: Amen!
Hampstead Pete: If anyone had a reason not to believe in God's existence, it was I. Raised in foster homes, abused, abandoned by family and abused by many churches.
I hated "organized religion" and I still do!
However, Jesus Christ, hates "organized religion" too! Jesus took on the "religious leaders of His day, over oppressing the people". God is so misrepresented today!
Growing up I realize now that I had put human attributes on God, and God is not human, He is divine and holy. When I got to the end of myself one day, as I tried to end my life many times, and yet each time, something or someone stopped me from dying.
I wanted the pain to stop and the nightmares to go away! I cried out to God, not even sure He was real. I was so full of confusion and I'd been lied to so much of my life. I didn't even know what truth looked like.
Well, the Lord God heard those cries and He revealed Himself to me, time after time, after time.
The proof of all this is the way HE has changed me, my heart and my life is all to His glory and He is worthy of all my praise.
No one could tell me about this loving God, I had to experience Him for myself. When I sought Him with my whole heart, HE was right there!!! I know now that HE had never left me, He is very near to those who are broken hearted and He never forsakes us, especially the children!!!
I could never have survived what I did, without the Lord God having been there! I know His presence today and I know that He was there, even when I didn't feel Him there. His being there doesn't depend on my feelings or emotions. He is even now redeeming all that Satan stole out of my life, my family, my future and my walk with the Lord!
Pete, please don't totally dismiss that He may very well be so very real, at least give Him a real try. You won't be sorry Pete, Jesus is more than even I could ever imagine!
My own sister who wouldn't talk about God for many years, has seen the changes God has made in me and she knows He is real also, she just came through a battle with cancer, Praise God! I pray that God will open the eyes of your heart to see Him.
For all the atheists I feel sorry for you. Jesus is about love and loving without judgement but there is one unforgivable sin and that is not believeing in Jesus. If someone never heard of Jesus then thats up to God but for people like u who reject him u have no excuse. No religion teaches love any where close to christianity. Islam is a territorial religion, hinduism is a caste system where they mistreat the poor.Budhism is about self. Look around you all you atheists and see who is doing 99% of the giving and all the charity work in the world its christians. Even to non christians its a fact we are the most generous of all religions. So why dont you stop and leave us christians alone. Our job is to let u know if u dont want to accept it dont accept it period. NEXT
HampsteadPete
Forgive me for hurting you. Please allow me to say this in love. You used to be in God's family and I wish that you could teach your children and grandchildren what he is like [as an academic exercise perhaps] and give them the opportunity to make their own decision about God, just as your own parents did. I love you.
Little Hana "doesn't believe in myths".Good for her. What about the myth that the universe exploded into existence without a cause? What about the myth that life suddenly appeared without a cause? Here are two of the biggest myths I have ever heard. Thanks for the Chesterton quote schumacr. He had a tremendous influence on C.S. Lewis, as well as many others.His book "Orthodoxy" is a Christian Classic.Good job!!
mollywriter -
To your point of atheists not harming children or acting in cruel ways, let me point you to R. J. Rummel's book “Death by Government” where he records the following deaths by atheistic, anti-religion governments:
• Joseph Stalin 42,672,000
• Mao Zedong 37,828,000
• Adolf Hitler 20,946,000
• Chiang Kai-shek 10,214,000
• Vladimir Lenin 4,017,000
• Hideki Tojo 3,990,000
• Pol Pot 2,397,000
Rummel says, “Almost 170 million men, women and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed or killed in any other of a myriad of ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners.”
Even some anti-God philosophers, such as Voltaire, have observed the horrible things that can happen when people believe lies and act upon them:
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
mollywriter,
Wow, can you take something more out of context? This scripture is talking about the Edomites and what they were going to do to the Israeli children. Scripture interprets scripture... take a look at 2 Kings 8:12 for the elaborated meaning behind this scripture.
Hazael said, "Why does my lord weep?" Then he answered , "Because I know the evil that you will do to the sons of Israel: their strongholds you will set on fire, and their young men you will kill with the sword, and their little ones you will dash in pieces, and their women with child you will rip up." 2 Kings 8:12 (NASB)
Granted, The Lord is in control and giving up the people of Israel, but it was their own choice. It may seem cruel to a lesser mind, but we should be greatful that the Lord has given us a way out of our judgement through His Son.
We do not think twice about gassing and killing ants and insects, yet we talk about how cruel God is to take what is rightfully His to begin with. God can hold the entire universe in His hands, fingertips even... I truly wonder how it will be to stand before such an Awesome God?
For all you Scripture quoters, don't forget this gem:
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Psalms 137:9
I think I would rather go with the atheists---at least they're not violent towards children.
Whenever I see atheists refer to themselves as 'freethinkers' I remember what G.K. Chesterton said about H.G. Wells: "He thought that the object of opening the mind is simply opening the mind, whereas I am incurably convinced that the object of opening the mind, as in opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."
I also don't see how anyone can refer to themselves as an atheist. Even Richard Dawkins admits he isn't 100% sure there isn't a God, which makes sense because to say "no God" (atheist), you have to have ultimate knowledge (know 100%) and be present everywhere (e.g. how do you know God isn't beyond Pluto?) and in so doing, you take on two of God's attributes: His omniscience and omnipresence.
HampsteadPete - Here's a 30 second proof for God to think about:
- you exist
- if you exist, something must have always existed because something can't come from nothing
- the 2 sources of eternality are an eternal universe and eternal Creator
- science has conclusively proven the universe isn't eternal
- therefore, God exists
And no, it doesn't say what 'kind' of God exists, but it does logically point to an intelligent Creator.
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Matthew 19:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
"I don't know any atheists among my acquaintances. What I do know is that the good life lived by these families will end here in this life, and they will one day stand before Jehoval God and be judged"
I'm sure you do know some atheists, you just don't realize it. For 57 years, I never made a big deal of atheism, didn't write the newspaper, no bumper stickers or calls to the local talk radio shows, and most of my Christian friends just thought I was a backslider of some sort. No longer!
As far as the "judgment" is concerned, I'll take my chances. Fact is, I would live my life no differently even if I knew for certain that some God existed, and there was some part of me that would survive death. Right now, there is absolutely NO evidence for either, but even if there was, which of the 34,000 sects and denominations of Christianity would I pick? And what if this God wasn't the Christian God? Boy oh boy, you throw all those permutations in there and it makes the lottery look easy! At least Pascal offered a 50/50 chance.
Anyone can live the good life here on earth whether you are a Christian, Hindu, Muslim or atheist. I know many Hindu and Muslim families who are law-abiding, good community people, prosperous and well-educated, and whose children are well-paid professionals and good civil servants. The Hindu families, a couple of whom are close family friends, worship idols which represent a number of gods. The Muslim families, equally successful and prosperous, worship Allah. I don't know any atheists among my acquaintances. What I do know is that the good life lived by these families will end here in this life, and they will one day stand before Jehoval God and be judged. And anyone who once knew the truth and turns his back on it and teaches his children and grandchildren that there is no God will be judged more harshly than the worshipers of idols and demons. God loves his prodigal sons and he yearns for the day when they realise they cannot live indefinitely on pig food in a pig sty and return to their Father who is waiting eagerly for their return.
2 Timothy 3:15-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
"A recent study by Ellison Research, however, found that most Americans who attended church as a child say their past worship attendance has had a positive impact on them. The majority, including those who no longer currently attend religious services, said their attendance at church as a child gave them a good moral foundation and that they are glad they attended."
I would have to say that the above is true in my case, but things were different then. I was brought up in a Congregational Church in the 50's & early 60's. The issues that drive the culture wars today, abortion and sexual preferences, just simply didn't exist, at least not in the forefront as they do today.
The morals and ethics I was taught in the church are the same things that most cultures on earth teach children - simply enlightened self-interest, and that the highest moral good is the alleviation of human suffering. Of course, the Congregationalists had dogma, like every religion has dogma, I just never paid much attention to it. After all, much of what they were trying to teach, like genesis and the flood, ran contrary to established fact (then and NOW), and common sense as well.
So, as the article says, I benefited from my childhood in church, but there was nothing there I felt was necessary to take with me. My wife and I have raised five children, all of them atheists. None of them has spent as much as a night in jail, none has had children out of wedlock, four are college graduates, three are professional people and all make a good living & are credits to their various communities.
I wish the camp mentioned in the article was available when our kids were growing up, but I'm glad they are there for our grandchildren (6 so far).