Dawkins’ Ten Commandments
In his latest book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins presents his own Alternative Ten Commandments. I enjoyed the list so much I wanted to share it here. [Edit: it has been pointed out that this list was not written by Dawkins, but only offered in his book. Whoever wrote it, I think it is a great list of principles. EDIT #2: It appears that the original list can be found here, written by one "Ebonmuse" who authors the site Daylight Atheism.]
1. Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you
2. In all things, strive to cause no harm
3. Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.
4. Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
5. Live life with a sense of joy and wonder
6. Always seek to be learning something new
7. Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
8. Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.
9. Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.
10. Question everything
The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God!
@Morris:
1) When you quote the Bible, please include chapter and verse. The one you quoted is Psalms 14:1
2) This line is essentially name calling. Throwing poo does not advance your cause.
3) If we look at the line logically, it follows that one who says there is no God is, by definition, a fool. If so, then I am proud to be in the company of such fools as Albert Einstein, Douglas Adams, Isaac Asimov, George Carlin, Noam Chomsky, Richard Feynman, Gene Roddenberry, Gore Vidal, Kurt Vonnegut, and Joss Whedon, all people of great intelligence who have proved themselves to be fine humanitarians and profound contributors to the good of humankind.
4) Of course, your quote says nothing as to the utility of Dawkin’s Alternate Ten Commandments. It also does not follow that one who believes in a god wouldn’t approve of them. I’m willing to bet many would.
re 3): Actually, logically it does not follow that one who says there is no God is a fool. The line says only that one who is a fool says that there is no God. In other words, it implies that fools are atheists, from which it does NOT follow that all atheists are fools.
So really, it’s a pretty stupid line for that guy to have quoted, even from a theological perspective.
The statement that fools sometimes say “there is no god” is somewhat of an empty statement. I think the intended statement was that people who deny the existence of god are fools. On the other hand, I find it odd that Joss Whedon was lumped in there… Not exactly proven himself as timeless yet. Anyway, I think the point was clear and the initial interpretation was correct.
I’m quite sure the line implies that one who does not “have God in his heart” is, by definition, a fool. This doesn’t preclude there being other kinds of fools, of course.
The line is translated wrong, suggest you read the latin or the italian version of that bible passagge
LOL, yeah, why read them in the original when you can read other translations?
English isn’t the original, the Bible was originally written in Hebrew and was translated away from it through Greek to Latin to English, so the closer you get to Hebrew the more accurate it is.
Actually, you are both wrong. The line simply tells us that a fool has said there is no God. Doesn’t say anything about all other fools or anyone else who says there is no God. But I’m ready to throw away this not-very-cherished belief if I am proved wrong.
The paragraph of Psalm 14 says: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. 2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”
This is clearly talking about people in general who do not believe in God and calling them fools. And not just fools, but corrupt, abominable, and filthy. This is what Morris is accusing me of and I provided evidence to the contrary—that many people who do not believe in any god are actually brilliant, humane, trustworthy, and (I assume) sanitary.
But I wonder what we call someone who persists in believing something that is demonstratively false…hm….I’m sure a word will come to mind…
Of course, all arguments given so far are rubbish if you realize the truth. The Bible is a work of fiction, written by men in order to control other men.
It can be useful to discuss the meaning of things, even when they do not reflect reality, because it can help us understand how people view the world.
From God’s point of view atheists and other nonbelievers are fools.
We’ve already established that some theists believe that non-theists are fools. Some also believe that we are filthy, corrupt, and abominable, as per Psalm 14. But of course most non-theists are not those things; the vast majority are at least as humane, honorable, and clean as are believers. So, if it is not true that non-theists are filthy, corrupt, and abominable, then it must also not be true that they are any more foolish than believers.
But if we go to the Revised Pascal’s Wager, we find that it is actually most wise to be a good non-believer, because then one could live a life of humane reason but possibly be rewarded with Heaven if God only requires ethical behavior (honesty, generosity, bravery, etc). Because of this, I strongly encourage everyone to accept the True Path of Wisdom: non-belief!
Of course, if there is no god, as I maintain is the actual case, then Psalm 14 is really just about believers spitting on people who don’t share their faith. It’s rudimentary in-group/out-group behavior, which appears with religious believers, middle school students, and sports fans alike. But hey, if it makes you feel superior and special, then go with it…
it kind of proves the whole problem with religion at the moment; it is flawed. The Bible is almost certainly man written. I know thats going to cause some tremors, but the amount of flaws in it suggest it was indeed written by men, perhaps men that were close to the ‘Divine’ but still written by men. All men are flawed, no-one is perfect. It is for this reason i do not believe in religion. I can believe in a creater, but this creator doesn’nt necessairly have to be perfect or all mighty. I believe this because we are beginging as humans to create anti-matter, in other words replicate the origins of the universe. Religious people say this is wrong; we are playing God and shouldnt do. OK thats fine, good argument. But whats to say that ‘God’ himself isnt just a creature, who liks human beings’ pushed the boundrys of life with science. This therefore follows that like human, ‘God’ maybe floored.
Of course I have no evidence for this at all, but I am just following logic and what I have learnt. I could be wrong, there could be a God. But like religious people have faith there is, I have faith that there isnt a God akin to what religions say about him. I am not religious, but that does not make me any less human. I laugh, I love, I cry, I donate to charity, I get angry, I shout, I make mistakes, I walk, talk, think and have views on life. I agree with Dawkins ’10 commandments’ with the exception with they shouldnt need to be ‘commandments’; it should be adivice.
Anyway those are my views; feel to disagree. And if you are going to try and change my views, please give me a logical reason to, an solid argument based on reason. Id love to have unshakeable belief in God. But I dont, Im a man a logic and reason. I enjoy life, and if there is a all loving God I cant see me being damned for the life i live.
Let me ask you this Zacrene: How can you look at the innerworkings of life from the existence and actions of subatomic particles that come together in a prescribed way that form molecules and compounds that come together in various ways to then form dna and then cells all of which act according to the dna being expressed in the individual cell….then these various cells come together to form tissues, organs and the like and these systems work together to form life and create a being that can not only function in the world full of other combinations of these atoms (plants, earth, other life, air, planets) and grasp ideas such as God, right/wrong, love, hate, patience, yearning, at the other many feelings and thoughts we have? Please also add into this equation that these thinking beings and the complex web of a world they live in also are spinning around in another system of planets and galaxies that operate in a type of system. How is it not logical to think there is a God? It is illogical to think there is not! Poof we appeared on the scene because of some chemical reactions? Please! Those are theories too you know? Maybe you should do some soul searching and some research before making conclusions about what you have learned from a few books or on tv. It is a cow that follows the herd. Dont be a cow…find out for yourself. It has taken me years and years to come to the conclusion I have and it is because of “science’ that I feel the way I do. Please do this for yourself.
Bridget…in no way do I want to speak for Zacrene, but you bring up some wonderful ideas.
How is it not logical to think there is a God?
Well, it isn’t logical for a lot of reasons, not the least of which being there is no shred of evidence for any preternatural agent in the workings of the universe. Said another way, it isn’t logical to assume that something exists when there is no evidence of its existence.
When you mention all the amazing things we’ve discovered about the universe, the logical conclusion is that a god is neither explanatory nor necessary. True, there are gaps that one can easily fit a god into, but science is doing a marvelous job of filling those gaps with empirical knowledge, and a god has yet to show up in any of them.
But I’m right there with you when it comes to the reverence and awe that nature inspires. To my mind, nature is all the more amazing for not needing a god to exist; by looking to a god for some understanding of reality, nature is demeaned.
Poof we appeared on the scene because of some chemical reactions? Please!
You are the second theist to use the word “poof” to describe the appearance of life. But “poof” denotes a sudden, out-of-the-blue phenomenon, whereas life arose after many millions of years of gradual change, with the evolution of that life to current forms taking many millions of years more. If anything, life is an anti-poof event.
At the same time, lab experiments have shown that it’s possible for nucleotides (the basic building blocks of DNA) to form from the interaction of organic chemicals. It will be a while before we nail down exactly how DNA evolved, but that is the excitement of science. Saying “God did it” answers nothing.
Please also add into this equation that these thinking beings and the complex web of a world they live in also are spinning around in another system of planets and galaxies that operate in a type of system.
Nature is an amazing place, no doubt about it. That is the very basis of Religious Naturalism, which is the spiritual orientation that Sacred River (this site) ascribes to. Follow the link to find out more about religious naturalism.
With all this said, you are in good company. Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau saw God when they saw nature. But others took the next logical step—Spinoza and Einstein, for example, saw God as Nature. An eminently logical man, Einstein famously said, “I do not believe in a personal God…If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” That about sums it up for me.
What starts out as a reasonable conversation always seems to end with snide remarks when religous people try to make their points. I’m refering to the cow remark. To my thinking, the cow that follows the herd would be the people in the churches who blindly seem to follow what is being preached at them from the pulpits. But these teachers are basing their theology on what was taught and handed down to them from corrupt leaders down through the ages. God didn’t put his hand to ink and write the bible, it was written by men who were living in the spirit of God, but what I am writing now is also being written by someone living in the spirit of God. Perhaps my interpretation of God is different than yours, because in my search to understand him I’ve shed as much of the crappola as I can. And if you study it out for yourself, the real history of the churches, you might not feel so secure about your spiritual footing knowing that the book you base your whole belief system on was put together by corrupt men pursuing there own purposes. There are more scriptures out there, and once you accept them for what they really are you’ll be able to find God in them too.
As for whether there is a God or not, I’ve been on both sides of the fence in my life. There is no proof one way or the other. I believe there will be one day, but for now, it’s all faith. For all you and I know, death may be the end of it all for us. Anyone who says they know, is a phony.
What starts out as a reasonable conversation always seems to end with snide remarks when religous people try to make their points.
I suspect that people—theists and non-theists alike—who resort to such tactics are those who are generally insecure about themselves. It is simply a way of dismissing others. In this case, Bridget is dismissing Zacrene by accusing him of being what I suspect she is afraid of being, a credulous believer of nonsense.
There is no proof one way or the other.
Not to be boorish, but I like to remind people that one cannot offer positive evidence that something does not exist. In other words, there is nothing to observe that would prove that unicorns, fairies, or gods do not exist.
However, it is possible to say that if a god is posited that acts within the world (e.g. via prayer or miracles), then we should see evidence of such interventions. However, we do not; in all cases, we see a universe of matter/energy behaving according to regular physical laws. This being true, it is logical to argue that such missing evidence is itself evidence that an intervening god does not exist.
Now then, might there be a non-intervening god? It’s not impossible. But if it doesn’t interact with the world, how would we even know of such a being, since knowledge of god would require some kind of information transfer? It seems logical to assume that it is far more likely that we simply invented such a being. But even if we didn’t, we couldn’t know anything about it, being fully hidden…such a being might just as likely be hideously evil as wondrously good. Maybe we are part of a soul farm for this god, grown to feed its children. If we are saying that it’s all based on pure faith, then this hypothesis is as likely as any other.
I’m honestly not trying to be a jerk, I’m just trying to point out the problems with believing in something for which there is no evidence.
Bridget, your argument for the existence of a creator seems to rely on the assumption that complex systems can’t form from simpler systems over time. There are so many extremely good examples of that happening that it’s hard to believe that you have a science background as you claim without having a good understanding of how complex systems can evolve from simpler ones over long periods of time.
You asked “How is it not logical to think there is a God?” Well, because there is no need to add a creator into the process to explain existence, and also because adding in a creator, just compounds things because a thinking person is now compelled to ask the question “Where did this creator come from?” If simple systems can’t become more complicated, then, where did this God thing come from? It simply moves the original question that you tried to answer, and explains nothing.
As to the right/wrong, love, hate, (emotional states) stuff, I would suggest that the concepts of right/wrong (good/evil) are unrelated to the others. I think Plato asked the ‘right
’ question when he asked “Is something good because God likes it, or, does God like it because it’s good?” The bottom line is that moral judgements are just that — Judgements. Quite often the right/wrong aligns itself with groups based on what is good, or bad for a group. If you are trying to say that atheists have no moral compass, then, I suspect you haven’t spent much time with any. I tend to think that a sense of ethics, and morality are probably intrinsically tied to sentience. Once one can conceive of their own existence, they tend to value it. ergo “Values” The rest is just details.
As for a sense of self being tied to neural connections being ridiculous, I’m not certain what neuroscience background you possess. I work with neural networks, and my wife has her doctorate in bio-psychology. I’m not aware of anyone declaring that they have completely unravelled the secret to what constitutes sentience, but, neural connectivity is probably going to be integrally tied into it. I tend to think that the neural pathways are more like wiring, and that thoughts are the signals flowing through them, but, I’m also reasonably certain that there are ways to store signal in the neurons in such a manner that they can be reconstituted, and transmitted. But, that’s just supposition.
Anyway, you seem to be stuck where you are looking at everything from only one perspective. Your knowledge of basic building blocks seems to stop when it comes to understanding how they build upon one another serendipitously. You are presenting this argument which presupposes that since the current circumstances require this elaborate web of precursors, that the current outcome must have been planned. Why? My take on it is that what exists just happens to be the outcome of lots, and lots of possibilities. And, that it’s really very cool, interesting, awe inspiring, elegant, beautiful, and only random in that it exists as opposed to an infinity of other possibilities that don’t.
Take care.
The word “evil” is used. If there is evil there is good. Where does the evil and good come from? Please explain that in a logical way. Also please include your explanation of the existence of “self.” Where does the “self” come from? And please dont say the self is a set of neuronal connections…that is ridiculous and has not been proven. I have studied the brain and its inner-workings for a long time and there is yet to be an explanation of the idea of self that all of us posses.
Thank you!
Great questions, Bridget!!
Where does the evil and good come from?
“Evil” and “Good” aren’t substances or states, but moral judgments on behaviors and ideas. All judgments are products of the human mind grounded in the evolutionary necessity of primates to live together in a reasonably harmonious way. We are beginning to find the basic building blocks of human ethics, which are related to such issues as fairness, resource/mate protection, incest avoidance, and reciprocal altruism (to name a few).
As in language, the moral building blocks have evolved into complex structures that are now largely culture-based. These structures form in every group (churches, schools, workplaces, clubs, and even whole cities and nations), and the majority of them are implicit, meaning they are unspoken mandates and rules of thumb that guide how group members behave and interact. When someone violates a rule, everyone knows it, even when that rule isn’t written down. Humans are simply wired this way.
Although the underlying purpose of morality is logical—the creation of social rules that allow humans to live together in groups—individual morals or moral sets are not always rational or even beneficial. At one time, for example, slavery was considered perfectly acceptable by many Americans and was even justified with the Bible. Many people would now consider slavery to be an unambiguous evil.
This is why there is a movement to push morals into a principle-based system rather than attempting a set of absolute rules. For example, increasing fairness and decreasing suffering are “good” principles, but what those look like will change along with a changing society, just as the acceptability of slavery changed with the Civil War. This is but one benefit of a non-theistic perspective—we can approach goodness from a reasonable and compassionate place rather than by attempting to fulfill rigid decrees, regardless of their relevance or logic.
Where does the “self” come from? And please don’t say the self is a set of neuronal connections…that is ridiculous and has not been proven.
The experience of self does indeed stem from complex neural nets in the brain, although the total self certainly includes the whole body. This might seem ridiculous to you, but there is a great deal of empirical evidence for it (and no evidence to the contrary). True, we learn more about the creation of self all the time as we learn more about the brain, but it isn’t the mystery you are making it out to be.
What we call the self is constructed from many psycho-neurological mechanisms, including temperament, emotions, personality (a la the Big Five), subjective perception and awareness, motivations and bodily needs, working memory and long-term memory, worldview and heuristic sets (e.g. social roles), and what you would call thinking. The self is an emergent phenomena that arises from the integration of all these functions, each of which are borne in the brain and derive from a combination of genetics and experience, and shifts according to environmental priming (a great example of this is an experiment with Chinese-Americans: one group was shown American symbols and the other Chinese symbols: each group then interpreted a single image, with the first group preferring a Western concept of individualism, with the other preferring an Eastern communal perspective. So based on how they were primed, different “selves” came to the fore).
To learn more, I strongly recommend “The Developing Mind” by Dan Siegel.
I’m afraid you might be falling for what our ancient ancestors fell for: the assumption that anything we don’t fully understand in nature must be due to a supernatural agent. It’s as if to say that if something in nature is amazing and beyond our comprehension, it couldn’t have “just happened”. But why not? There is no reason to think that anything in nature required an external agent, and the more we learn about the universe, the more we must conclude that indeed no agent could have caused any of it. Nature is self-sufficient; that is part of its majesty.
“1) When you quote ancient Egyptian/Greek philosophy, please include the names of the philosophers and stories quoted. The ones you quoted were Pittacus, Thales, Sextus the Pythagorean, Isocrates, Epictetus, Epicurus, and The Eloquent Peasant.”
I fixed your statement. There were some errors. :]
Let’s address Morris’ REAL action. He is using a verse from a book filled with violence, lies, fairytales, misogyny, incest, genocide, rape and other various and sundry atrocities to call a wise, gentle, decent, logical, learned man a fool.
Yeah, that is one ringing indictment right there.
If Dawkins is a fool, we should all strive to be so foolish.
“ASH” How sad and empty your life must be, how hollow your soul must feel…I am sorry that you are proud to stand with other groups of men who have chosen to chose “logic” over TRUTH. If I were a betting person (which I am NOT) I would put all I have against the statement that if these “intelligent” men were able to come back to life and make ONE statement, that statement would be something along the lines of “REPENT, GOD is real, and HELL is a real literal place of torments!!! Accept JESUS CHRIST as your personal SAVIOR, do NOT come to this place!!” Read the story in Luke 16:19-30..about Lazarus and the rich man…
Besides all of that, it irks me that people of your type…atheist, “proud atheist”, always talk down to Christian’s like we are lesser people…like we are uneducated, and stupid…And since you chose to point out “intelligent” people who chose to be “fools, and die and go to a DEVIL’s HELL”…I would like to take the opportunity to share a few names of “intelligent” people who at one time were also “proud” to stand in that group that you stand in presently…but at some point in their life, realized the TRUTH…this list includes:
CS Lewis who was quite famous at the age of 30 when he converted much to the influence of JR Tolkien. Lewis taught at Oxford and belonged to a group known as Inklings. He was a atheist for much of his early thinking life. Other famous atheists that converted include; Anthony Flew who recently converted. Very much a leader in the atheist camp. Francis Collins, Geneticist, is another good example. Marvin Olasky, Fay Weldon, Keir Hardie, Alister McGrath. These are just a few. Check them out and see for yourself. So, I am guessing my point is that ‘DEVOUT ATHEIST HAVE CHANGED THEIR MIND AND ACCEPTED CHRIST AS THEIR SAVIOR, AND REALIZED THEY WERE WRONG IN THEIR FORMER THINKING….BUT CAN YOU THINK OF ANYONE WHO AT ONE TIME WAS A DEVOUT, PRACTICING, SAVED, BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN WHO ONE DAY UP AND DECIDED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BECOME AN ATHEIST???’ NO, Because once you are a born again believer…truly saved, with a personal relationship with CHRIST, you could NEVER understand why some people believe there is NO GOD…It just doesn’t happen…Atheist set out to disprove Christianity and more times then not end up converting…That is just a thought for you to ponder upon…I pray God has mercy on your soul, and that you too can be added to the ever growing list of Atheist who receive Christ…because the BIBLE clearly states in Philippians 2:10-11…EVERY knee shall bow…and EVERY tongue confess…it is just a matter of where… you will either confess and receive HIM as your Savior here on earth, or you will still be standing with the group of “intelligent fools” as they ALL bend the knee and confess JESUS LORD, before they are pitched into the lake of fire…where will you confess? My prayer is that you will confess here on earth, and experience a life change, and a fulfillment beyond you wildest imagination! Christie
@Christie
> “How sad and empty your life must be, how hollow your soul must feel…”
This is a common misunderstanding. Studies actually show that cultures with less religious belief tend to be happier and more peaceful and fulfilled. For myself, I’m happy to report that my life is filled with wonder, delight, and love. My cup overfloweth…
> “…chose “logic” over TRUTH.”
One does not choose “logic or truth” but rather which method one uses to discern what is true. Logic, rationality, and the scientific method all have an impressive track record of hypothesizing, predicting, studying, recording, and verifying the properties and processes of the universe. This general category of thinking led to the idea of universal human rights, the discovery of DNA and natural selection, and the world of both subatomic particles and an expanding universe filled with billions of galaxies, not to mention advances in medicine, engineering, psychology, communications, and so forth. I understand that faith can give one a profound sense of truth, but faith has never really provided any actual understanding of reality. So, the real choice is between a method that works (logic/science) and one that does nothing to further our understanding of the world (faith).
> “If I were a betting person (which I am NOT) I would put all I have against the statement that if these “intelligent” men were able to come back to life and make ONE statement, that statement would be something along the lines of “REPENT, GOD is real, and HELL is a real literal place of torments!!!”
For the sake of your bank account, I’m glad you aren’t a betting person.
> “Besides all of that, it irks me that people of your type…atheist, “proud atheist”, always talk down to Christian’s like we are lesser people…like we are uneducated, and stupid…”
Although I have yet to accuse Christians of being lesser people, uneducated, or stupid, I am struck by how easy you preach to me and accuse me of being ignorant, arrogant, sad, and hollow. If you so despise that kind of talk, why do you engage in it?
> “And since you chose to point out “intelligent” people who chose to be “fools, and die and go to a DEVIL’s HELL”…I would like to take the opportunity to share a few names of “intelligent” people who at one time were also “proud” to stand in that group that you stand in presently…but at some point in their life, realized the TRUTH…this list includes…”
Careful, you are engaging in logic. You are arguing that the atheists I mentioned are actually fools because: (1) Hell is real, (2) avoiding going there requires belief in a god, and (3) that therefore, it is foolish not to believe in a god. But if logic is the antithesis of TRUTH, then by your own reasoning, your argument must be wrong.
> “NO, Because once you are a born again believer…truly saved, with a personal relationship with CHRIST, you could NEVER understand why some people believe there is NO GOD…It just doesn’t happen…”
Actually, it happens all the time. I point you to
* ExChristian.net
* The Life After Christian Fundamentalism group at Atheist Nexus
* A great book— Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists, by Dan Barker
> “Atheist set out to disprove Christianity and more times then not end up converting…”
Alas, you are wrong on both counts. First, atheists aren’t out to disprove Christianity because one can’t prove a negative (i.e. we can’t prove that either Jesus or unicorns don’t exist). Rather, we are waiting for Christians to prove their claims; when they offer compelling evidence, then we’ll talk. Second, a rational investigation into Christianity is far more likely to result in a loss of faith. My evidence? Christianity as a whole is shrinking, while the number of atheists are expanding. See: http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
> “My prayer is that you will confess here on earth, and experience a life change, and a fulfillment beyond you wildest imagination!”
I think the real issue is that my fulfillment without faith is beyond your imagination. But I assure you, it is possible, and I have the added benefit of being free from the fear of hell that you seem haunted by.
Nicely done. Personally, I would have just called her an idiot and moved on, but then I’m not that patient with brainwashed religious sorts.
I was really sad to see that comment after such an enlightening argument. To quote the earlier poster
“it irks me that people of your type…atheist, “proud atheist”, always talk down to Christian’s like we are lesser people”
I myself am a proud atheist, but it is rather hard to stay proud when you’re on the same side as the “Hurr, stupid christians never listen to reason because they’re all brainwashed idiots” crowd.
I get very, very annoyed at “proud christians”, who look down upon us from their moral high ground and ignore or purposely fail to consider the argument for a godless creation. But I’m even more annoyed by the sort of atheist who proudly dismiss religon as baaing of brainwashed sheeple, who share the same ability to not hear the arguments of those who disagree with them, so deafened by smugness and self assurance.
Even though we are on the same “side” of this argument, you and your sort make me sick. I challenge you to take aside some time, perhaps as you fall asleep, and imagine that you live in a world where justice comes for all, where there is eternal life, where there is someone almighty who loves you and all around you who just wants everybody to be happy. Nice, isn’t it? Now can you really blame someone for wanting to live in a world like that?
We can’t always be patient though. We’re outnumbered. I’ve argued with Christians aplenty, and sometimes I just have to throw up my hands too. In principle, yes, it would be nice to dissect every stupid argument they have (even though it won’t make a difference in their views), but such work is tiresome. Not to mention, it is almost always ignored rather than carefully examined and understood by them. As someone that has often argued with Christians (particularly creationists) I have to sympathize with Bill.
Then just….move on. Nobody is asking you to interact with people who frustrate you. You do not have to engage them or ask them to engage you. Just try to be respectful where you can, and pass on by where you can’t.
The problem comes when the Christians come to you and ask you to “share their faith”. I grew up in a catholic school with a lesbian, Wiccan mother so I agree with you to a point that we should just “move on” but only to the extent that the Christians are willing to do so as well.
On the other hand, I’ve been to XiaoLin (Shaolin) temple to study GongFu (Kung Fu) and the entirety of the staff, teachers, students (and obviously the monks) were devout Buddhists yet when they heard that I was not a Buddhist they had no qualms. They did not want me to come into some parts of the temple but overall, the closest I got to evangelism was the teachers asking if I wanted to join one of their services (which I agreed to) with no ‘requirement’ to be Buddhist.
Why can’t the Christians approach there beliefs the same way that other religions do (well maybe not the modern iteration of Islam)
Also, interesting that the 10 commandments read like the Wiccan Reede. I like
Careful, the “modern iteration” of Islam, as you call it, seems to be the extremist Shi’ite (or Shiah, for the historians) sect that has emerged during this century. Do remember that this came about after centuries of roiling turmoil brought about by a mere difference of opinion that came up in the fifth century AD. Be careful not to ‘lump in’ all Muslim peoples with those for whom we traditionally have a distaste.
While I do agree that the Shariah code has inevitably given the Middle Eastern Muslims a bad name, we must remember that there are people of every faith (including Islam) who are level-headed people and who do not obsessively proselytize.
@OpenMindedAtheist
Friend, you speak out of turn. It would be wonderful to imagine a world like that, but “soul-crushingly” unrealistic. Sorry, champ. People aren’t wired that way. They will always scrape and scratch and claw to find themselves on marginally (moral) higher ground.
This is an open forum for discussion. Ash has exactly as much right to indignation as ChristieJohnson. Doubly so as this was designed to be a site for open-minded, not-strictly-Christian discussion. I don’t flame their boards. Why do they come to ours?
I don’t want to convert back. I can never again close my eyes as I was so inelegantly instructed to in my youth. Homosexuals and women have rights, too, if you don’t mind my opinion. The bible tells you to the kill the former and enslave the latter. How “enlightening”!
If you find that, in your heart, such simple soothes help assuage your anguish, I strongly recommend, for your own calm and well-being, that you try to find that in whatever religion speaks to you. I, for one, indulge in Buddhist meditation from time to time. I am certainly no Buddhist, but I find that to turn one’s eye within will often provide enlightenment to improve the one existence in which we are to be.
Lay down your arms. There are no enemies here. Agree to let fools be fools, no matter who they are and realize that… in the end… what does it matter? Find peace. Be at peace. Most of all: ENJOY YOUR LIFE!
Amen! Or whatever it is us heathens are supposed to say.
RAmen?
definitely.
This seems exactly how I think and feel. Thanks Ash for putting it in words. I totally agree with you
Beautifully articulated, Ash – I applaud you.
Ash, you are my hero!
Hello Christie Johnson,
Quoting from the Bible when making an argument against rational thinking is in the same lines as:
–
A – I don’t believe in Santa Claus.
B – You fool. Listen to these words: “Jingle bells, jingle bells, jingle all the way.” See? Santa is real.
A – Ah, I see now. Thanks for the quotation!
–
Oh, an there’s always CAPITAL LETTERS to win an argument:
–
A – I don’t believe in fairies.
B – YOU FOOL. FAIRIES ARE REAL!!!
A – Thanks for changing my mind with those huge letters.
@ChristieJohnson
You make me sad.
I fully and wholly believe in God and yet, in this argument, I agree more with Ash simply because he’s the only one not quoting random biblical verse, telling people they’re going to hell simply for being atheist (whether or not they are good people) and generally making a fool out of himself.
Again, I repeat, I believe in God. Completely. But I refuse to think that being a good person who lives a good, wholesome life comes second to judgment in the name of belief in relation to reward in the afterlife.
Personally I would say that Dawkins’ commandments are, fundamentally, excellent pieces of advice to follow. Dawkins and I are not in agreement on many subjects, but that in no way means he isn’t a good human being with good ideas. Besides, I have no doubt in my mind that even the God that I believe in would be more than happy to to agree with Dawkins that it’s a great idea to “…strive to cause no harm” and to treat others with “…love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.” These are just honest virtues that deserve to be nothing if not rewarded and admired.
You truly give theists the ever-worsening reputation we seem to have gained over the last few years.
I like this Richard, it is nice to be reminded that not all religious people are as nutty as those who typically seem to be most vocal on forums such as this one.
I just wanted to say how refreshing it is to hear a person of faith who actually recognises that people like dawkins are not satan in disguise, and don’t instantly jump into discussions with arguments like ‘you are an atheist therefore you will burn in hell’. You post was well written, well phrased and intelligent. If there were more theists with your sort of mindset i think there would be far less animosity between believers and non-believers.
There’s always (at least) two sides to an argument. And I think our side is about as bad as theirs. We characterise Christians as accusing and hateful lot and think each of them must be weak-minded for falling for what we think are lies. We are as single-minded in our beliefs as they are. We are smug because we feel so certain that we are right, just like they do. We overlook the teachings of love, compassion and forgiveness that are integral to their way of life. We are resentful because their way is old and ingrained in the culture we live in.
tl;dr:
you said “theists with your sort of mindset i think there would be far less animosity between believers and non-believer”
I would say that it is equally true that there would be less animosity if there more atheists of Richard’s disposition
I think the reality is that most Christians feel the way that Richard does. The problem is that the most outspoken Christians are the ones that take a literal interpretation, and are bound to scripture and the only “truth”. These are the Christians that:
*take the most offense
*believe that it is their duty to combat sites like this
*think that a mass murderer accepting Jesus at the electric chair is more deserving of heaven than a missionary devoting his life to the poor.
The more mainstream christian is not threatened by the fact that an atheist has a view on life. They are also less willing to post. Frankly, they don’t give a rat’s patootie that any of us post here. Therefore you will see very few normal christians commenting on any site like this; it doesn’t interest them.
I appreciate your approach on this matter. Just for the record, I do not go on sites such as this and ‘combat’ my beliefs on a regular basis, in fact this is the 1st and only time I have ever debated this issue on the internet.
I fully understand and can accept that everyone on this site is entitled to their own opinion and beliefs (or unbelief for that matter!)And it is not my ultimate goal to ‘convert’ anyone here…I would just like to cast a shadow of doubt in someone’s mind, that would cause them to question and think to themselves…what if???
In my daily life I make an earnest attempt to live a life on the outside of love, peace, and joy…utter joy, even in the worst of situations…and I truly care and hope the best for everyone on this site…I just hope that “best” would someday include salvation…even if years in the future. I would like to say thank you for your attitude of open mindedness, and your lack of hate towards someone such as I who believes differently then you. I have no HATE for atheist, or agnostics…only the desire to share what joy and peace I have found in Christ.
And I would like to throw in that my older brother spent several years as an agnostic…he is an intellectual…and would demand logic,reasoning and evidence for anything he believed, so he was the son of a Baptist preacher-who didn’t believe in God. Trust me there was NO converting him…not from us (his family)!! But somewhere deep inside in the last couple of years he began to experience that “longing” inside (that couldn’t be filled with any earthly thing), and even though he lived thousands of miles from any of us, he gave his heart and life to Christ. He realized that it is not about logic, or reason…it is about faith and trust. I am sure if he were on here now he would tell you that he would NEVER turn back if given the opportunity, that his life now is fuller and richer then it ever was before. So my motives are pure, and on a personal level… because who knows if someone on here has a Christian family PRAYING for their repentance and conversion, as me and my family were for my brother. Once again thank you for your positive attitude.
@ChristieJohnson
I am happy that your brother has found some measure of inner peace. I hope he has a better understanding of his life, now, with a better understanding of himself.
Now, let me preface this by saying I bear out no malice in this statement: I have seen many boards that would have given you your savior’s fate for your ranting. We, none of us here, need to be “convinced,” “converted” nor “saved.” For many, if not most of us, that shadow of doubt is what led us here in the first place. Please, if, in the future, you feel the need to share your faith, share it kindly, with the love your savior taught. There is no need for boorish affirmation of things none of us can prove nor disprove.
We are here to find peace as much as you. We choose to find it in a way that differs from your own. We come here in our own brand of fellowship, to share our ideas. We, like you, also lead full and rich lives. Accept that, and please, move on. I wish nothing but deep peace and a bright future for you. Take care.
Not to mention, if there were more people like Richard, there would be much more interesting and intellectually stimulating discussions to be had between athiests and thiests.
In fairness, for every nutty Bible-bashing theist there’s a nutty Dawkins-bashing atheist.
I call troll on all of the supposedly Christan people here.
Troll on, mi amigo! OpenMindedAtheist is definitely a closet christian. Ive read a lot of talk about the inherent differences between christians and atheists but what about the other sky monsters? Allah is crying in the corner. Vishnu and Osiris are seething in rage because no one is arguing over their legitimacy. Christianity is just the flavor of the week. They still have a long way to go to outbreed the muslims but, god willing, they’ll get there…
Dawkins puts it best when he addresses christians. He says both he and the christian are atheists. He just believes in one god less than they do
“BUT CAN YOU THINK OF ANYONE WHO AT ONE TIME WAS A DEVOUT, PRACTICING, SAVED, BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN WHO ONE DAY UP AND DECIDED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BECOME AN ATHEIST???’ NO”
Yes. Me.
Same here.
Me too.
I was “saving souls for Christ” at the age of 16 and was heavily involved in the evangelical world. I read all the “right” books, including those by Josh McDowell and others of his ilk.
Several years later I began studying for the ministry. This required reading the Bible all the way through, in the light of modern Bible scholarship.
As someone once said, the Bible, completely and critically read, is a potent force towards atheism. If you want to remain a Believer it is necessary to read it in sections and to avoid or ignore huge chunks. Cross-referencing is also “out”. Reading the resurrection accounts of all four gospels side-by-side is a shocker.
I studied Middle Eastern myths and legends and the un-edited history of Christianity. Some of the most disturbing parts were the gruesome murders committed by or for waring Christian factions in the process of deciding what elements would be included in the new Roman State Religion (soon to be knows as Christianity) and which ancient books would end up in the sacred canon of “inspired” scripture.
After that I could only continue to believe in what was obvious absurdity by forgetting all that I had learned, suppressing my critical ability, rejecting intellectual integrity and encapsulating my previous beliefs from the intelligence I applied to determine the truth of falsity of things in the rest of my life.
I could not engage in that kind of intellectual suicide so I reluctantly, and with much pain, discarded by fondly held beliefs in the Christian god. I could find no logical reason why I should substitute any other god.
After the mourning period life continued on as before. Life is as of full of wonder, love and purpose as it was before. I am just free of having to engage in mental contortions to justify the brutality of the Jewish Tribal God and to equate the picture drawn of this god with the picture drawn of the first century itinerant Jew who insisted that the way to god was through poverty and abandoning one’s family.
I second that. I was raised Baptist, went to church every Sunday and Wednesday with my family, went to private Christian elementary school, sang in the church choir, read the Bible, and prayed to god every night.
And what did I get in return? Absolutely nothing. I never once felt at peace or close to god. I prayed and prayed and prayed, but it was always to no avail. My whole childhood was fucked. I was abused in every possible way and I was neglected. And when I was merely 13 years old, I lost my best and only friend to suicide. He was honestly the most amazing person I’ve ever had the pleasure of knowing. He didn’t deserve what happened to him.
Now you tell me right now how a god who loves his “children” let that happen? Tell me how that could possibly be fair? Of course, you could go on that argument that “God has a plan” and “everything happens for a reason”, but I will never agree with you.
I did not share my story to sound like I’m screaming, “Poor me! Poor me!” I am well aware that there are other people who have it a lot worse. I shared it because more people should be independently thinking individuals who do not have to fear god or heaven or hell or anything else the bible talks about, instead of brainwashed, close minded pricks.
Warmly, Heather
Thanks for sharing your moving story, Heather. Lots of lessons there we can all learn.
Heather,
My story is very similar to yours in that I know that many have it far worse than I do. Personally, I lost my faith in stages. First, I fell out of love with Lutheranism when my questions about religion and science were stifled by my parents and clergy. Next I became disenchanted with Christianity when the congregation of the church I was attending became angry with the pastor provided for them by their synod. Instead of confronting him, they decided to send angry letters to his mother, in another state. The final straw for my faith was the fact that I have suffered from depression fro years. I had prayed to god to make me happy, to take away the pain, but he did not. A benevolent god would not cause someone to suffer such pain without a reason, nor would he ignore pleas from a follower. I am not angry with god, as some would suggest, I simply recognize that if he existed, he would not treat his creation this way.
Same here. Raised Roman Catholic in Malta, a country which has little separation of church and state, is 98% Catholic and doesn’t even allow divorce.
Grew up with the belief that God is always looking out for me, watching over me, walking besides me. Nothing bad had to happen to me to disprove this, I just opened my eyes to the universe and found no body there.
It’s a very disappointing feeling, but no one ever said being an atheist was easy.
Myself as well
me too, although I’m more agnostic
More “agnostic” than what? “Agnostic” just means that you don’t think claims should be accepted without proper evidence to support them. This term is especially relevant to claims of the supernatural, in that an agnostic doesn’t think that the existence of supernatural entities can be supported by evidence. There are agnostic atheists, who don’t believe in gods because there is no evidence for them, but who also admit that god claims are non-falsifiable. There are also agnostic theists, who admit that their god’s existence can’t be supported by evidence, but who believe in it nonetheless for reasons having nothing to do with their agnosticism. If you don’t believe in gods you are an atheist, a category quite separate from that of agnosticism. So you can’t be “more agnostic” than atheist any more than you can be more pianist than human.
Hi Casey. I’m not sure I agree with your definitions here, although we are all free to use language however we want. In the main, however, an agnostic is someone who has reserved any judgment as to the existence or non-existence of a god; it’s not just that they are willing to admit that they don’t know, they also refuse to form an opinion on the matter. An atheist, on the other hand, is one who holds the conviction that there are no gods, even while admitting that the truth is impossible to prove absolutely one way or the other. A theist might be willing to admit the possibility that there are no gods, but chooses to believe in one anyway.
Aside from a few of my teenage years where I dismissed the whole thought process, I believed in God my whole life, and leaned on God through the worst times of it. So it’s not easy just to dismiss the idea that he exists. Instead, my concept of who he is evolved to
a more personal level. I find at this point in my life that that’s very hard to let go of. I can definately accept the atheistic beliefs of my kids, and be equally at home with my Christian friends. So when I say I’m agnostic, either I just don’t know or am unwilling to say one way or the other I guess. Still growing.
Hello, chaos. Like I told Casey, you are free to use language however you like. However, if you now have a belief in a god, which is what it sounds like, then you are not an agnostic, you are a theist. It seems to me that you are becoming more accepting of those who believe otherwise, which makes you a tolerant theist, a rare breed
You will be an agnostic if you say, “I don’t believe in a god, but I don’t disbelieve, either; I do not have a conviction one way or the other.” This is not limited to religion…one can say, “I don’t believe in UFOs, but I don’t disbelieve either; maybe they’ve visited us and maybe they haven’t. I don’t know.”
An agnostic is also not someone who is starting to doubt his faith. This is pure speculation, but I believe the vast majority of people who lose their faith either become atheists, alter their beliefs, or move to another religion entirely. I think it is a very rare person who goes from a strong belief to a purely agnostic position. But perhaps you are becoming one of those people…I don’t know!
There’s a fine line between wanting to believe in something, and actually believing it. I have only the evidence of my own life, but believe it or not it is the teachings of the bible, at least the New Testament and Isaiah, that helped me sort my life out. But that’s also because the reason I was so messed up was because of the teachings of the religions. I did move to another religion, several in fact, before deciding that my beliefs wouldn’t work in any of them. So I might hope that there will be an afterlife, but that won’t change the facts of whether there is or isn’t one. And because I believe in whatever is real, and I have no real proof one way or the other, I guess you could say I lean toward theism only because I haven’t had to change that yet. I do however question it constantly. And if somehow we could have the answer when we died either way, it won’t crush me to find out the truth in the matter, whatever it may be.
There’s a fine line between wanting to believe in something, and actually believing it.
There’s a difference, but I’m not sure how fine it is. I want to believe that every last human will choose a life of integrity, creativity, and compassion, but I don’t actually believe that it will ever happen (which is all the more painful for knowing that, technically, my wish isn’t impossible).
I have only the evidence of my own life, but believe it or not it is the teachings of the bible, at least the New Testament and Isaiah, that helped me sort my life out.
That is certainly evidence that the Bible can be a source of positive inspiration for some people. There is also no doubt at all that religious belief can lead to increased well-being. It is even well established that some people have experienced what seems to be vivid and very life-like visions of various religious constructs. But none of that is evidence that a god exists, only that religious beliefs can have a significant effect on our state of mind.
But that’s also because the reason I was so messed up was because of the teachings of the religions.
Some people argue that religion messes everyone up.
So I might hope that there will be an afterlife, but that won’t change the facts of whether there is or isn’t one. And because I believe in whatever is real, and I have no real proof one way or the other, I guess you could say I lean toward theism only because I haven’t had to change that yet. I do however question it constantly. And if somehow we could have the answer when we died either way, it won’t crush me to find out the truth in the matter, whatever it may be.
So, if I’m reading you right, you think there might be a god, but have no proof one way or another, and so you choose to “lean” towards believing it, although you question it constantly. Whew! Sounds exausting.
Don’t worry about labels, they are mostly used for establishing affiliation group boundaries. I would describe you as a skeptical theist, if that matters, and I applaud you for at least questioning your beliefs. My own views have changed radically over the last few years, and the place I’ve ended up at (Religious Naturalism) is the culmination of a long journey. I wouldn’t trade that journey for anything.
Me too. Raised from a very young age in a fundamentalist Christian cult. The person who expressed this naive sentiment would be surprised to find out how many atheists are former believers.
In fact I’d like to explode another popular naive sentiment: that those who de-converted from belief to atheism were somehow lax in their religion. This is certainly the case for some, but not for most. It is often a careful regard for the belief system in question that leads one ultimately to reject it. In my own experience I was consistently annoyed at how little many of my fellow believers understood about our cult’s teachings.
It seems to me that in general the most studious of believers eventually leave the faith, while those who are less scrupulous about their beliefs stay on because they never encounter or appreciate the inconsistencies therein. The lesson here for religious institutions of course is to promote anti-intellectualism (even with regard to lay members being too well-versed in their own teachings–especially those that have been abandoned or altered), which, in fact, they all do.
Please be a troll.
Christie.
Your list of Christian converts who used to be atheists is deeply flawed.
CS Lewis may have lacked interest in religion at some stage, but that makes him an a-religionist, not an a-theist. At no time in his life did he ever examine the claims for god-belief and find them logically incoherent, absurd or lacking in supporting evidence. Ergo he was never an a-theist.
Anthony Flew never converted to Christianity. At the commencement of his age-related dementia he “converted” to the deist god supported by an ancient Greek philospher. He perceives this god to be unconscious, impersonal and uninterested in humans. He does not believe in “salvation”, a soul or a life after physical death. I find it hilarious that a group of Christian Evangelicals from Biola University presented an ward to Flew for converting to another religion while continuing to describe theirs as nonsense.
The others on the list also do not qualify for the correctly used term “atheist” – that is, someone who does not believe in the existence of any gods. Their pre-conversion state is best described as one of these: a-religious (not interested in religion), lapsed Christian (rejecting a god they continue to believe in), defiant Christian (hating a god they continued to believe in) or, simply, a doubting Christian.
An acquired lack of belief in the existence of any gods is strongly correlated with increasing levels of educational achievement, especially in applied sciences and branches of logic and critical thinking. Conversely, educational levels which have not progressed beyond fact regurgitation are strongly associated with the maintenance of god beliefs and the credulous acceptance of product claims made by marketing experts.
Among the developed nations, Sweden has the highest per capita level of educational achievement (see the TIMSS report series for comparisons of academic achievement levels across the nations at Year 12) and the USA has the lowest, especially in science and other measures of the ability to think critically. National god beliefs and measures of societal health and morality parallel these academic results. Sweden has the highest level of people without god belief (more than 80 percent) while the USA has the lowest (between 2 and 20 percent, depending on how it is counted). Sweden has the lowest indication of societal ill-health (criminal activity, human rights infringements, homelessness, unhappiness, wretchedness, etc.) while the USA has the highest incidences of these disorders.
In summary, a look at the actual facts (as distinct from the ones you have heard from people with vested interests in obscuring them) suggests that poor education which stops at the mindless fact regurgitation stage in the sciences are likely to maintain their god beliefs, live in a highly dysfunctional and inhumane society and to engage in criminal activity. On the other hand, those who progress to educational stages which require that material be critically examined are likely to discard god beliefs for lack of valid evidence or coherent reasons and to be happy and moral.
Thanks for putting in the effort of this comment. Facts won’t convince True Believers like Christie, but plenty of fence-sitters might be persuaded.
To put it simply, I am happy, and live a fulfilled life of volunteering and helping others. I am also Atheist. My soul is NOT empty.
Christie You are wrong about christians who never become Atheist. I was born again Baptist for fifty years. I am proud to call myself Atheist. I have never been happier. I understand death from an evolution concept. I think you should read the book Thank God for Evolution by Michael Dowd. You will find info on his website. I hope you keep an open mind as you walk the christian walk. All the best to you.
NO, Because once you are a born again believer…truly saved, with a personal relationship with CHRIST, you could NEVER understand why some people believe there is NO GOD…It just doesn’t happen
Uh…yeah, it does. I was a Christian for thirty years, and I wasn’t pinned there by its logic, but by its brainwashing and guilt.
“BUT CAN YOU THINK OF ANYONE WHO AT ONE TIME WAS A DEVOUT, PRACTICING, SAVED, BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN WHO ONE DAY UP AND DECIDED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BECOME AN ATHEIST???”
Hi, I’m here, the guy you were talking about here… And I’m not the only one, plenty of devout christians discover the lies they’ve been fed all their lives. The most surprising part for me is how much more I enjoy life as a godless heathen, and I sin less than most “devout born-again christians” that I know.
Y’know, Morris, I really detest that quotation. It’s the Christian equivalent of screaming “Four legs good, two legs bad” or “I’m a moron!” At least it serves as a very clear marker that the speaker is proud of his ignorance and that there’s no point in attempting any sort of rational discussion, so it’s a pretty good time-saver. With that in mind, here’s my counter-point. It wasn’t written thousands of years ago by primitive, superstitious, Middle Eastern goat herders, so it probably won’t impress you, but it’s the best I got.
.
A small-minded coward encountered confusing, scary ideas, and verily he did run in baffled terror, bleating scripture like a frightened sheep.
.
Cheers!
Do not be envious of those who live in a fools paradise,
for only a fool would think that it is paradise.
- Bertrand Russell
Amen to that! ..ah wait a minute…
Please, do not worship your Egyptian sun-god in this thread, ok?
I think that at “RAmen” was referring to the ‘Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster’
Oh boy!A Christian “debate”, I better jump in! As one who has benefited from associations with “good” Christians and suffered endlessly from the “bad”, please allow me to toss a couple cents into the pool. I have seen Christians do good works, help the needy, give back to family and community without thought of reward of recognition, love unconditionally and just be generally all around decent people to hang out with. None of them ever felt the need to explain their beliefs to me. Their beliefs were clear to see for anybody willing to look.
On the other hand, I have seen some deeply disturbed individuals with an obvious inability to control their more base impulses who suddenly believe “God” has cured them and now feel the need to accuse others of having the same perversions, moral weakness and character flaws. I enjoy nothing more than having some reformed drunk, wife beater, cheating whore, thief or liar tell me I am condemned to hell unless I accept that I am like them and can only find peace and salvation in the light of their “God”.
First, your weakness didn’t suddenly disappear. You have not been cured. You have channeled your depravity into an unbelievably destructive ideology that you now use to bully and threaten the intellectually weak (usually children and the desperately poor and uneducated). You cannot understand how the rest of the world can possibly be happy without your “God” offering salvation for their repentance. Easy! The rest of us fuck up, we realize it, we correct it and move on to the next lesson life gives us.
If you truly want to convert the world to your beliefs shut up and show us! Don’t tell me how great God is. Show me how great God is. Live your life in such a way that I see and admire what you have and choose to emulate your behaviors. The next time you feel the need to tell someone how hollow and empty they are, how they are going to rot in hell for their sins – think this: “Wow! I must sound like a complete douche! How happy can I be if I can only see others as the miserable pile of crap I supposedly used to be?”
In my life I have lied, cheated and stolen. It made me feel bad. I apologized, asked the offended party for forgiveness, made amends and chose not to do it again. Not because “God” removed the temptation, not because “God” removed the “demon” from me, but because I am capable of doing right and wrong according to my own conscience.
Just so you know, most of us walking around on the earth are not filled with whatever weaknesses you succumbed too. Most of us are perfectly capable of distinguishing right and wrong and do not wish to harm others in any way. Not because a book told us not to. But because we simply do not have the desire or capacity to harm ourselves or others the way you have.
My sincerest desire is to see all religions pull their collective heads out of their asses and hit the streets doing nothing but good, admirable works that the rest of us unbelievers look at and think, “Gosh! “Look” at how cool them religious guys are!” Trust me, “hearing” you say how cool you are will never have the same effect.
Brilliant!Great post. Those are my thoughts on the subject as well.But i lack the eloquence(noun. speech or writing that is vivid, forceful, fluent, graceful, and persuasive[im sure you knew what it meant the definition is for the less educated])to put it so succinctly.
You Rawk Dude!
Can’t we all just get along? Does it matter what we believe in? Do we have to forcfully convert others? I’m an Atheist, but I dont go off and debate with people of Religions just because I think they’re wrong and I’m right, I think we should try to show light to those who ARE doing harm, instead of trying to argue with those who we could be kind too, ya know?
This site is not intended as an atheist/theist battleground. I do think it is worthwhile to celebrate rational thought and examine the weaknesses in faith-based thinking. But that shouldn’t require mean-hearted vitriol.
This is a religious naturalism site, and as such, I encourage readers to think rather in terms of how to develop a spiritual approach to a non-theistic orientation.
Sorry James, but the desire to all get along and our ability to do so are diametrically apposed in a lot of respects. It is the irreconcilable differences between the believers and non-believers that make it the hot debate it is, and rightly should be.
The human ability to “get along” requires both parties understand and respect (not necessarily agree with) each others point of view.
To understand the perspective of someone else requires you to be open (again, not necessarily agree with) new and different ideas. It requires you to listen and understand the validity of their position, even if you don’t agree with it.
Then and only then, can we engage in meaningful debate.
Until then, we are stuck with flinging poo.
As an atheist, I can say that I can appreciate and understand why a religious person believes in a god and how they derive personal comfort from that belief. Where I struggle, and would appreciate serious debate, is in understanding how, when confronted with the overwhelming evidence against the Christian God as we’ve been brought up to know, can you continue to believe or at least not start to question your belief. To paraphrase Mr. Dawkins, we are all atheist when it comes to most of the historical Gods the world has known, we just go one God further.
It would be really nice is this were possible.
The very first comment posted on this site was from a hostile Christian who quoted his/her holy book in an attempt to prove that all atheists are “fools” of the worst order. This is no better than the playground bully who taunts the odd kid out.
It would be a welcome relief to simply get on with living life as a normal human being without being denigrated, abused and insulted by “true Christians” who think atheists should treated as evil, immoral, self-serving monsters who hate their gods, saints and angels and are intent on corrupting them and their children.
wonderful list! Bravo…Christian, Islamic, Buddhist…any person of thoughtful religion should be able to find some good and decency in this list…your life must be very full to have so much beauty!! Carry ON!
all I can see is followers of religion taunting, insulting those that choose not to follow, as though making oneself feel lesser will make them pick up a religious path… I believe it is a preference, to choose to follow or not to follow. Sin or not, love thy neighbor for who they are, not what you think they should be.
I am agnostic, which by christian belief is no better than atheist apparently.
And there you have it. JC is agnostic.
hahah great observation
@Christie et al. … I for one am an ex-Christian and extremely glad to be! One can learn a bit of my story here, if one is interested; rather a large assumption, I grant.
An Open Letter to My Christian Friends
The most dangerous madmen are those created by religion, and … people whose aim is to disrupt society always know how to make good use of them on occasion.
Dawkins is not a skeptic. Skepticism necessitates moral nihilism, for one. I’ve been an atheist for a long time and I’m certain nihilism is the future for mankind.
Skepticism does not necessitate moral nihilism. Relativism does.
Nothing “necessitates” nihilism. Relativism doesn’t because it holds that some things have more value than others, even if those values change depending on the context. That is, in fact, how ethics really work in the real world, even within supposedly rigid cultural systems. Nihilism, on the other hands, says that either nothing has value or that all things are of exactly equal value (both of which mean the same thing, pragmatically speaking).
I think a lot of people run into problems with this idea of “nihilism”, and that they are problems to be solved, in the words of R.M. Hare, “not by an agonising struggle with [one's] soul, but by an attempt to understand what [one is] saying.”
The arguments for moral nihilism in particular are all but unassailable, and anyone who engages with it honestly and intelligently is forced to conclude that there indeed are no moral qualities out there in the universe somewhere, and that all statements along the lines of “doing X is wrong” are at best unknowable, and more likely to be positively false, if we take “rightness” and “wrongness” to be intrinsic values possessed by objects or actions in their own right. Yet, as you say in another comment here, people nevertheless do appear to have an inbuilt moral sense which is likely to have arisen at least in part through natural selection, and no amount of philosophising about nihilism is able to alter that observation. The conundrum is resolved once we accept that we’re actually talking about two completely different types of “morality”, and just using the same word to label both of them.
“Value” is not something an object possesses in the same way that it possesses mass, or velocity, or shape. It arises, to simplify, from an interaction between a valuer and a thing being valued, and is transient and “subjective” in that way. It’s the same thing with something like beauty; nobody argues that beauty is an intrinsic property possessed by things, and everyone accepts that beauty is little more than a reaction of an observer to a thing observed, but nobody has any problem accepting that beauty is “real” despite this. To argue that the absence of intrinsic objective “values” which exist independently of consciousness must therefore result in nihilism is fundamentally misguided, because values simply do not have to exist intrinsically and externally in order to be “real”. If you personally value something, no amount of philosophising is going to convince you that you don’t, and existential woe arising from a belief in nihilism is actually a reflection of philosophical naivete and the creation of an imaginary moral problem where one does not in fact exist.
The problem with morality, of course, is that nobody proposes legislating things like beauty; nobody seriously entertains the idea of sending you to jail if you don’t find Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 beautiful, but they do want to send you to jail if your moral values – to they extent they are reflected in your actions, at least – conflict with their own. Taking individual values and trying to convert them to universal values, claiming that people are somehow “bad” if they don’t subscribe to the majority view, is always going to be troublesome. Value judgments are necessarily individual, but a “morality of one” is meaningless, since by its very nature morality entails a code of conduct that is or should be shared by many.
For this reason I think that moral nihilism is the only meaningful approach to the subject, although this does not necessarily entail value nihilism. Thus, I agree with your other post that what we call morality should be based on a “pragmatic principle of making life worth living”, but I think calling it “morality” or believing that there actually is anything “moral” going on is a mistake, and can only lead to confusion. Rather, we can take the case of murder, for example, and say “most of us here value not being murdered, and so if you try to murder any of us, we’re going to lock you up, and we couldn’t care less about the so-called ‘rights’ or ‘wrongs’ of it.” At first glance, it might seem harmless enough to use the terms “right” or “wrong” to describe such pragmatic judgments, but if you do that then it’s easy to start believing in the objective meaning of those terms and to start legislating against things “because they’re just wrong” when there is no pragmatic purpose for doing so whatsoever.
The arguments for moral nihilism in particular are all but unassailable,
I agree with Hume when he said, “Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.”
Morality does not require an absolute, objective set of externally-derived rules regarding right and wrong. Such a list obviously cannot exist. But morality is also more than an abstract or arbitrary collection of subjective values. It is arguable that murder is indeed a wrongful act, not simply an act I do not value, because it violates a possibly innate sense of fairness (i.e. it isn’t fair to be intentionally killed for unjust reasons) as well as our biological drive to survive. Since a basic sense of fairness and drive to survive are seemingly universal, it is reasonable to suggest that some rudimentary acts will always be seen as wrong within any given culture (although I will admit that religion can and does program people to accept terrible things), which eliminates the possibility of a true moral nihilism (as opposed to the nihilism of pure logic).
Your example about aesthetics actually supports my perspective, because it makes no sense to legislate taste. Aesthetics are value-based and purely subjective, and therefore not a moral issue.
I can’t pretend to have any answers for all this. I can say that many religious naturalists are aware of it and I know of at least two books coming out that will attempt to address the idea of a naturalistic morality.
Part of the basis of your critique seems semantic. I suppose we can use the term ethics, which is the same thing where the rubber hits the road. But I think the term morality can carry a somewhat different weight without needing to draw upon a supernatural source. Perhaps it doesn’t really matter in the end which word we use, but it’s interesting to think about.
It is arguable that murder is indeed a wrongful act, not simply an act I do not value, because it violates a possibly innate sense of fairness (i.e. it isn’t fair to be intentionally killed for unjust reasons) as well as our biological drive to survive.
It’s arguable, but not very easily. The idea that “it isn’t fair to be intentionally killed for unjust reasons” is circular, for instance, since how are you going to define “unjust” in terms other than “that which isn’t fair”? You can’t sensibly argue that murder is wrong simply because it involves “wrongful killing”.
On top of that, you’d have to address plentiful actual instances of murder. Not to invoke Godwin, but take the Holocaust as an example. I simply cannot accept that the Nazis used to spend their time sitting around together at nights, cackling inanely and reveling in how absolutely and delightfully evil they all were. One is forced to assume that they thought that what they were doing, if not “good” in and of itself, was nevertheless for the “greater good”, even if only for the “greater good” of a particular subset of the human population. And if you can accept that someone could do such a thing and genuinely think that it’s ultimately “for the best”, how can you possibly ever talk sensibly about an “innate sense of fairness” upon which an objective, universal and factual account of morality could be based?
As far as the “biological drive to survive” goes, it’s eminently arguable that what has arisen from evolution is merely a drive to ensure the survival of one’s own group, and that even completely eliminating competing groups could be perfectly consistent with that drive, so I’m skeptical of an ability to derive an objective morality about murder in general from any biological urges, although it would certainly be easier to argue if you were to restrict yourself to discussing murders within a given community. But even then, the language we actually use would appear to reject such an idea; how many people, for instance, would accept that what makes an action “moral” is the degree to which it is consistent with biological urges? I think when people talk about morality, they actually do mean something quite distinct from this, which is why I argue calling such things “moral” is a mistake. Put it down to semantics, if you like, but I think this kind of account of morality would demonstrably be at odds with what people actually do think they mean by those terms.
I think compassion and child/parent bonding are too embedded into our psychology for nihilism to take hold as a dominant human principle. But as traditional religion continues to die, the transition to a more mature ethical society will be uncomfortable and, for many, distressing. Dawkins is merely illustrating that a fundamental set of ethics are possible without the need for a supernatural source.
I have been an atheist for a long time and I have absolutely no room in my life for the philosophy of nihilism. Life is better than that.
OTOH, the typical Christian apologist thinks that all atheists are nihilists. In my experience nihilist atheists are very much a minority.
“If you could be either God’s worst enemy or nothing, which would you choose?”
— Chuck Palahniuk (Fight Club: A Novel)
One thing I’ve learned in this life is… a damaged human will not become undamaged by discovering and embracing religion. Often, it gives them a means of piling their troubles in the corner and “starting over” without addressing the reasons they made the choices they’ve made in the first place.
In my experience as a therapist, entering into religion can, in many cases, effectively help one stop self destructive behaviors, such as addiction. But you are right that religion is not itself capable of healing; at best it can help one cope with psychological wounds, sometimes in a less destructive way.
In _my_ experience as a therapist, the healing benefits of religion are no greater (and often less) than good secular techniques and interventions.
i believe that when it comes to addiction, may it be drugs, alcohol, pornography of whatever, religion is not the “fixer” it merely becomes another addiction if not brought about the “right” way ( of course i have no idea what the “right” way of going about that might be!!) just sayin
I agree with your observation, only adding that religion addiction is less likely to put you in the ER.
More likely to land you in the sanitarium, however.
Religion-
The human’s pacifier…
Suckled to displace the fear
of his non-existence.
Excellent commandments. Dawkins annoys the hell out of me with many of his conclusions, but I think these commandments could and should be used by all of any or no faith.
For curiosity’s sake, elaborate? when does dawkins annoy you?
What an entertaining and illuminating thread! I StumbledUpon this site and look forward to exploring further. As for the subject, it is pretty challenging to convince anyone that their beliefs are largely subjective and culturally contextual, not necessarily verifiable. Usually some profound experience or crisis is part of a paradigm shift. Argument (rational or otherwise) tends to create a defensive reaction. The other factor in play is that without religion there is an existential reality that can be difficult to navigate sometimes. A roadmap (religion) can simplify the journey. And since no one knows where we are going having a map allows people to abdicate personal responsibility. “It’s all part of God’s plan!”
Someday humankind will shake off the yoke of servitude to the minions of a fabricated super-being, but for now perhaps all we can do is chip away at the false idol with a perspicacious and tenacious pursuit of logic and reason.
Dawkins and I are both godforsaken fools I suppose. Cheers to that!
There are more important, profound, and meaningful things in life than whether or not there is a god or if God exists. All the hackneyed comments about religion as a “pacifier” or “personal Lord and Savior” make me sick. Can’t you people exert any shred of intelligence, concentration, diligence, self-sacrifice, or introspection to figure something out that’s actually of some use, beauty, or benefit to someone? Not one shred of me believes that any one of you on either side of the debate is so humble or pious or enlightened as to be justified in parading these predigested answers to questions about an ultimate reality which, by definition, predates the petty existence of your words and the material illusion of their meaning.
Bingo. Daniel’s hit it on the head. There are those who talk about what they are, what they believe, what others should or should not do, how others should or should not live. People: don’t forget to live, make, love, do, learn, grow, accept.
First you say, “There are those who talk about what they are, what they believe, what others should or should not do, how others should or should not live.”
Then you proceed to tell us what to do and how to live.
Hypocrite.
It’s always funny to me when people argue that we shouldn’t argue.
Not one shred of me believes that you are so humble or pious or enlightened as to be justified in parading these predigested answers as to what is worth discussing and what is not.
“There are more important, profound, and meaningful things in life than whether or not there is a god or if God exists.”
For those who have been force-fed that God exists all their lives, their is no more important, profound, or meaningful discussion. I long ago dissed religion, but having figured out that most of those involved in them haven’t got a clue as to what is actually being taught by their ‘savior’ doesn’t mean those teachings were flawed. Indeed, once freed of the religous crap those guidelines actually worked for me. I went from crazy to sane, so to speak, but now can look at it all in hindsight and see the psychology of it too. Ultimately my quest for the truth in this matter absorbed a good portion of my life, and freed me from the guilt and torment from the nuns and preachers of my past. That peace of mind is more important than anything you could list, so the discussion has merit. And it’s fun.
What’s this…? A seemingly reasoned and intellectual debate? On the INTERNET? Wow.
This has been a very interesting read though. I liked Dawkins’ commandments, and challenge any Christian (or any theist, in fact) to question his motives after reading them.
Thank god I’m an atheist.
Amazing, isn’t it?
I’m an agnostic, who hopes there is a caring god. That said, I find it unfathomable that a god would give a whit about what I think regarding that which is unknowable. And for the “Know that I know that I know” crowd, well, you don’t. But that’s ok! It doesn’t matter! After we die, IF there is someone to show us around, we’re all going to shit our britches at what it’s really like, or not. And the most intense beliefs you hold will be worthless in the face of the TRUTH.
That’s my guess/opinion, but I don’t take it too seriously…neither will God, and neither should you.
Thanks for adding your thoughts.
Personality, awareness, sensation, thought, memory, emotion…these are all emergent products of the nervous system, without which there is no “I”. Because of this, I can think of no reason why my experience after death will be any different than my life before birth.
But you hit on a key reason for denying the veracity of concepts like a personal god and immortality…they are too conveniently aligned with our deepest desires. True, Hell isn’t reflective of a desire, but it is of our deepest fears, which again makes for a convenient pairing. It would be an odd religion that believed that after death our personalities morphed into colors that dance in an infinitely large kaleidoscope. On second thought, that sounds pretty cool…I’ll call this new religion kaleidoscopism. I officially declare myself pope!
In all seriousness, I am reminded of this quote by physicist Richard Feynman: “Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which are there.”
But you hit on a key reason for denying the veracity of concepts like a personal god and immortality…they are too conveniently aligned with our deepest desires.
Do you think so? I tend to come down on the side of Christopher Hitchens and suspect that the supernatural claims of religion, if true, would create an absolutely horrendous universe, and would not satisfy our “deepest desires” or alleviate our “deepest fears” at all.
For instance, it may seem like it would be nice to have a “caring god” as your previous commentator put it, but on the other hand, Hitchens likens the idea to that of a “celestial North Korea”, where one is subject to absolute surveillance every single minute of every single day, including, in a manner that would make Big Brother proud, surveillance of our very thoughts. And “the fun really begins”, Hitchens says, “after you’re dead”. The biggest difference, he says, is that “at least you can fucking die and leave North Korea.”
Further, as far as religion easing one’s existential woes is concerned, a little examination leads one to suspect that maybe it won’t. People say there would be no “meaning” in life if we were just born, died, and got eaten by worms, but the idea that some idea of an afterlife would provide meaning is usually just assumed to be true. Think about it. Spending your days with nothing to accomplish, no needs to fulfill, just sitting on a cloud achieving every greater mastery of the harp, watering pot plants, and continually praising god and doing what he tells you all day long. For eternity. Where, exactly, is the “meaning” in that? After a few million years of that, I suspect you’d begin to think that even eternal torture would at least give you something to take your mind off the crushing tedium.
In short, I think that religious claims are only “aligned with our deepest desires” to the extent that they remain largely unexamined, because if you actually take a close look at them then the picture they paint really is not very appealing at all. They may distract one from being overly concerned with one’s desires and fears, but I certainly don’t think that, if true, they’d be anything like what believers actually thought they were signing up for. It may well be the case that if there were such a thing as the Abrahamic god, the most significant “meaning” one could find in life would be an attempt to escape from him and his eternal “plan” for us.
Hi Erwin, long time no chat…
Do you think so?
Yes, absolutely, at least in the form it is accepted by the majority of theists. Your objections are those of a critic of religion, not a believer. As you point out, once someone starts thinking about it, religious models tend to crumble. I think that’s why few honest theologists even bother with preternatural constructs anymore. But the underlying claims are indeed intended to ease our fears and fulfill our dreams.
But the underlying claims are indeed intended to ease our fears and fulfill our dreams.
Yes, they’re certainly intended to, but my point is that they don’t.
The traditional line of objection to religious claims is that they just aren’t true, that they’re not supported by evidence and that they are often self-evidently absurd. But the further line of objection that I’m proposing here is that they wouldn’t do what they claimed, even if they were true. They may “ease our fears” in the sense that they distract us from thinking about those fears, but they don’t ease our fears in the sense that they provide an actual account of something that would allay those fears, whether or not such an account is true.
The statement of your previous commentator that “I’m an agnostic, who hopes there is a caring god” presents a common enough view of religion which argues that it presents a coherent account of a state of affairs which would adequately address those deep existential and worrying questions that people have about their lives, but that it just unfortunately is not a true account, so we either have to look elsewhere for those answers or just accept that we’re not going to find them. My point is that religion just does not present such an account, regardless of the truth of it. And remember, this view was from a self-proclaimed “agnostic” who already doubts the truth of religious claims, and not from a believer. Plenty of atheists and agnostics would appear to subscribe the the view that “it would be nice if religious claims were true, but they aren’t”, and the point I’m trying to make here is that it wouldn’t be nice at all.
It’s important from the perspective of anyone trying to develop a “naturalistic” approach to religion, because one of the main claimed benefits of religion in general is that it provides some form of “comfort” against these type of existential questions, and one of the goals of a naturalistic religion may well be to provide an alternative form of comfort which is not at odds with fact. But, if that “comfort” is fundamentally misguided in the same way that the religious “comfort” is then you merely have an alternative form of comforting lie, one that may not be at odds with the fact of nature, but is at odds with what it claims to be able to do.
Arguably one of the greatest disservices religion has done to humanity is the presentation of this kind of false comfort which achieves its ends purely through distraction, if for no other reason than it stops people looking for something which is not only true, but which actually would address those existential issues in a meaningful way. One may attempt to ease concerns over mortality, for instance, in a naturalistic way by stressing continuity through children, or doing one’s best to make a difference “with the time one has”, or however else. But this may be throwing a band-aid on a problem which actually doesn’t need to be there in the first place, and actually perpetuating it for that reason. If people came to think that immortality would actually be a ticket to eternal torment and tedium and that mortality is actually better than that for this very reason – which, as far as I’m concerned, appears to actually be true – then that particular existential worry disappears in a puff of smoke, and rather than pandering to it and perpetuating that existential worry you’ve actually gotten rid of it and performed a real service.
My point here is that non-believers are just as prone as believers into thinking that a particular solution, if true, would satisfy our desires and alleviate our fears, but that they are often just plain wrong about it. Without examining some of these claims for what they purport to be saying – as a question quite apart from their truth – then a naturalistic approach to religion isn’t going to be any more wholesome or meaningful than a supernatural approach, and it’s just going to take the place of supernatural religion in acting as an inhibitive force against attempts to actually address these “fears” and “dreams” of which you speak.
Yes, they’re certainly intended to, but my point is that they don’t.
Well, I think it depends on how we approach the question. Such beliefs do not eradicate those fears, certainly, otherwise adherents wouldn’t need constant belief reinforcement. But I do think that many people are genuinely comforted and even exalted by the belief in a loving god who has offered them eternal life.
But the further line of objection that I’m proposing here is that they wouldn’t do what they claimed, even if they were true.
Well, I think this judgment is a bit subjective. I think plenty of people would be quite satisfied with the reality painted by their Sunday pastor.
But, if that “comfort” is fundamentally misguided in the same way that the religious “comfort” is then you merely have an alternative form of comforting lie, one that may not be at odds with the fact of nature, but is at odds with what it claims to be able to do.
But what might be comforting for one person might not be comforting for another. The only “lie” would be to say that we offer something that perfectly comforts everyone. Of course, no genuine religious naturalist would claim that; to do so would violate several of our fundamental principles.
Arguably one of the greatest disservices religion has done to humanity is the presentation of this kind of false comfort which achieves its ends purely through distraction, if for no other reason than it stops people looking for something which is not only true, but which actually would address those existential issues in a meaningful way.
In general I think this is true, but I think it also depends on how you define “meaningful”. Comfort is not an inherently bad thing; if we were constantly confronting our deepest fears without any filters we wouldn’t be able to function. The real question is, comfort at what price?
I would say that the comfort that “Christie” (in the comments below) experiences requires that she completely ignore apparent facts and use pretzel-logic to square all the internal inconsistency. To my mind, that is far too high a price to pay for comfort, if for no other reason than it leads to (obvious) anxiety when confronted with the real world. She has crippled her ability to be cognitively flexible, a basic requirement for a coherent mind and therefore for genuine fulfillment.
But what about a physicist who believes that, say, every soul is absorbed post-death into the cosmic soup, perhaps to be born again elsewhere in some random fashion…there is no reason to think this belief is true (and so wouldn’t fall under a naturalistic frame), but holding that belief wouldn’t prevent her from doing her job or extract nearly the same price as Christie is paying (who can’t even acknowledge the possibility of the Big Bang). Even though both beliefs are preternatural and dualistic, they are not equal in their reality-inhibiting effects.
My point here is that non-believers are just as prone as believers into thinking that a particular solution, if true, would satisfy our desires and alleviate our fears, but that they are often just plain wrong about it.
Sure, and that’s why naturalists look to the scientific method to question such solutions.
it’s just going to take the place of supernatural religion in acting as an inhibitive force against attempts to actually address these “fears” and “dreams” of which you speak.
I presume that most naturalists would agree with Dawkins when he suggests that we should test all things and always check our ideas against the facts, and to be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them. But it doesn’t follow that employing various religious tools (e.g. ritual, story, or celebration) to comfort those in pain would necessitate any long-term inability to face one’s fears or question one’s rosy assumptions.
Life is not a straight line, but a roller coaster…we are strong at times, and weak at others. I see no problem with assuaging the pain of fear, grief or loss so long as they are not used to prevent growth or inhibit curiosity.
I’m going to field this one via email – I don’t want to pollute your blog any further than I already have with the kind of long, rambling, and only tangentially topical response that it’s going to take to address this properly.
I won’t argue semantics, but I will entertain the idea that morality is objective – as irrational as it seems.
I’m not sure what you mean by “objective” here. If you mean that there might exist some absolute, fixed set of rules about what is good or bad, then that would be a very hard claim to make indeed since history shows that morals are highly varied, flexible, and changeable.
On the other hand, I do believe that a basic moral sense did evolve within us along with all of our other psychological features for the purpose to helping us survive and reproduce. For example, there is evidence that negative reactions to social cheating and mate “poaching” might be universal human mechanisms.
My own hope is that as humans become less inclined to believe in preternatural models of reality, we can build our morals on the pragmatic principle of making life worth living. In other words, something is “good” if, on the whole, it improves quality of life, well-being, and freedom. It will never be that easy, of course, but a principle-based morality would, I argue, be much more useful and beneficial than a punishment/reward morality.
I used to be a Christian. I like the arguments produced by atheist as it makes sense in every aspect. However, there are times where some atheist insult people with religion which deeply sickens me. There is no mutual respect as far as i see it. Things like this should be rectified in order for people with deep religious beliefs not to have an excuse to do the same to us, just like what happened in the first comment.
The problem as I see it is that acting like a jerk has little to do with belief…a jerk will be a jerk regardless of being a theist or an atheist. Heck, I know Buddhists who are jerks.
I myself have a profound disregard for those who use religion to hurt other people, and I’m afraid that a lot of people do, even if it’s only passively voting for a law that restricts people’s rights or promotes religion in public classrooms.
But a large number of believers are so simply because that was how they were raised. Once a worldview is embedded, it is very hard to change it. I will continue to make an argument for religious naturalism, but I will not call people stupid or malicious.
these are the basic buddhist advices for a happy and good way of living.
You’re a moron. Read before trolling.
Great list. But “question everything” always makes me ask, “Why?”
hehe, i thought the same thing
If these ten commandments were to work then it would make more sense for it to start
“9. Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.
10. Question everything
Then ignore all that may come before 9, then forget commandments 9 and 10″
As a christian, I try to convert atheists out of love and a deep desire to see them rescued from well…. you know. I used to be an atheist, I do not hate atheists, most of my friends are atheists. What I feel towards them is more like a deep sadness that no matter if they are happy or sad right now, they are missing out on something incredibly liberating and freeing.
There is a huge difference between Christianity and christianity
Christianity is love, forgiveness, freedom, power, joy, and teleportation (look it up in the bible, Phillip totally teleported)
christianity is judgement, ignorance, hypocracy, and well, pretty much every negative thing you have ever felt about a “christian”
Sadly there about a hundred times more little “c”s than big ones.
Oh, and big “C”s will also never tell you that you are going to hell, because we aren’t the Holy Spirit, we don’t know the outcome of your life, so we have no idea.
I am a former atheist who is now a big “C” Christian. I am more frustrated with the little “c” christians than most atheists. And if I were a betting man, I’d say the little “c”s are far more likely to go to hell than any atheist. See the story of the prodigal son. Atheist = younger brother, little “c” equals older brother, or pharisee if you’d rather.
sorry about my spelling
For curiosity’s sake (if you don’t mind me asking), were you raised a religious person? If so, when/why did you become an atheist? why do you no longer feel those reasons are valid? did you move to Christianity for emotional reasons? logical reasons?
Also, I appreciate the sentiment that we should be civil in our arguments.
Is it so hard to for atheists to believe a christian can believe these things too?
And to all the theists, you should question everything. it will make your faith unbreakable
That’s a bit of strawman you’re offering there, Cam…no one in this thread has suggested that a Christian couldn’t agree with Dawkins’ list. In fact, I imagine many theists of all stripes would agree to most of them, except perhaps for #7. The object of the list is merely to show that it is possible to create a list of “Commandments” that is fair, compassionate, useful, and reasonable without making appeal to a god.
Great commandments. Of course, I felt embarrased at not complying 100% of the time with them, though!
If you think of it, they are easy rules to be a humane, or a better human being. They are flexible enough to be questionable, since 10 says “Question everything” and “even these commandments” could be easily added.
agreed.
Appreciative of the wit, rationality and respectful words above. The insightful apostates, contributing a general standard of esteem, genuinely inspire. Carl Sagan wrote of claim-testing: requirements for “extraordinary evidence,” prior to concluding such things as fairies, demons, hells; the weight of immaterial things or description of invisible process.
I hope those who left God’s shadow, and those who never felt him looming to begin, learn to maintain this humanistic sense of non-divisiveness; that cooperation and discovery prevail conclusions that we are on such different paths.
“No divisive speech”: Maxim from Buddhism’s ‘Noble Eightfold Path.’
On the thoughts of GOD, Jesus, salvation, and heaven/hell…
Let’s just put it plainly…If you are right and I am wrong, after we die it won’t really matter…but if I am right and YOU are wrong, it will more than matter…it will be all you consider through eternity.
And Morris (who by the way is a Independent Baptist missionary..on the field, living what he believes EVERYDAY of his life…) is right in quoting “The fool hath said in his heart there is no God…”PSALMS 14:1
“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of GOD is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” ROMANS 6:23
I can rejoice that I have received that precious gift….as can you!
Concerning the Dawkin’s commandments…my only question is “what is wrong with the ORIGINAL commandments…given by a THRICE HOLY GOD???”
“Let’s just put it plainly…If you are right and I am wrong, after we die it won’t really matter…but if I am right and YOU are wrong, it will more than matter…it will be all you consider through eternity.”
Oh, so if you’re right and I’m wrong Jesus will torture me forever.
What happens if you’re wrong about Allah, Christie? Won’t he torture you forever?
I apologize in advance for the long-winded diatribe that is about to ensue. Hooray, StumbleUpon!
We’ve already established here that quoting scripture isn’t going to get you anywhere. To most of us, the bible is a quaint little book of the ancient peoples of the Middle East and Northern Africa (many people forget that that’s where Egypt is for some reason.) It’s a collection of stories, the kind filled with inconsistencies, insanity, violence, misogyny, vitriol and a few good pieces of advice. This is what we expect from bronze age peoples. Not so much of an all powerful being. They would be able to do better than that. If not, why follow them?
There is nothing holy about any book. Period. They’re written by people, on paper made by people, with ink made by people (mostly), printed on presses by people. Words on paper. Nothing divine there. Any person could point to any book in any language and yell, “This is all entirely true!” and have the same effect that you’ve just done. Grab the nearest children’s book. Seriously, do it. Grab the book and yell at the top of your lungs that all of the contents therein must be followed to the letter on the penalty of death. Once you feel silly, realize that what you’re feeling is exactly how you look to the rest of us.
“Let’s just put it plainly…If you are right and I am wrong, after we die it won’t really matter…but if I am right and YOU are wrong, it will more than matter…it will be all you consider through eternity.”
This is called “Pascal’s Wager”. I counter with this: I am unable to believe because of my thought structure relying on evidence. Therefore, I would have to fake my belief. Straight from Dawkins: “Would you bet on God’s valuing dishonestly faked belief over honest skepticism?” Furthermore, what if you’re wrong about which god you’ve chosen, and Ganesha or Thor is waiting for you, just to say, “Hi,” before you’re given the big thumbs down? By that thought process, why value any god over logic and a good, straightforward life? The odds of picking the right deity are extremely slim once you realize that their numbers are in the thousands. For further reading, look up Russel’s Teapot.
As for the Original Commandments, you know, the ten big ‘uns? Look no further than the Code of Ur-Nammu, King of Ur. Written over 2,000 years before biblical events were supposed to take place, it contains all 6 of the 10 Commandments not making a statement about gods, among numerous other laws. This gave rise, some 200 years later, to The Code of Hammurabi, which in turn helped form Assyrian and Hittite laws, which begat numerous other laws of the land, which eventually gave rise to Mosaic Law, which was only begun to be transcribed between 200-300 years after biblical events supposedly took place.
Also, something is either holy, or it isn’t. There is no such thing as “THRICE HOLY”. That’s kind of like saying that my writing style is “Thrice unique”, which doesn’t make any sense.
Furthermore, a fatal flaw in the design of the ten commandments comes in commandment number one:
“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;”
Which god is this? Is this one of the Egyptian Gods, as they (apparently the Jewish people,) had just been in Egypt, and those gods had been around for about three thousand years? Is this Zoroaster, who had been around in the area a couple hundred years or more? Is this one of the Greek Parthenon, who had been close to the area for over a thousand of years? As far as Judeo-Christian-Islamic gods go, is this Jehovah, Allah, Yahweh, or something else altogether? Who is talking to me? Who am I following?
Let’s move on to number two.
“Do not have any other gods before me.”
Why mention any other gods at all? Is this god of yours so insecure? What about free will? If this god was omnipotent, as christians claim, why would anyone have any other gods at all?
Number two, continued:
“You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”
No making statues. Got it.
Continued some more:
“You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,”
So, let me get this straight; Your ultimately loving and caring god is willing to punish the great grandchildren of un, non, and disbelievers. Talk about
Continued again:
“but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
So, if a thousand generations ago (way before biblical times, mind you) my ancestor followed you and all of your rules, you’d still accept all of their children and grandchildren all the way down the line as your favorites, even though they were all atheists or spiritualists or Roma or whatever. Sure.
Moving on to three:
“You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.”
Examples, please? Seriously, I want to understand this rule, because people got beaten to death with rocks for just *using* this supposed name, not just misusing it.
Four:
“Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
For six days you shall labour and do all your work.
But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.”
What day are we starting on? Which calendar are we using?
Five:
“Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.”
How do we go about that? Seriously, if we get explicit instructions on how to sacrifice animals (Lev: 3:6-16, for starters) we should get some explicit instructions on one of your biggest rules.
Six:
“You shall not murder.”
Does this include animals, either for sport or food? Enemies of your country? What connotes murder? What if you command otherwise, like you do with Saul and David against the Philistines in Samuel? In Isaiah 13, you command an army to destroy a country, and “15Whoever is captured will be thrust through;
all who are caught will fall by the sword.
16Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.”
Is this not murder (among other horrible crimes)?
Seven: You shall not commit adultery.
Define adultery, please. Biblical usage includes: Ezekiel 23:37, “…for they have committed adultery and blood is on their hands. They committed adultery with their idols; they even sacrificed their children, whom they bore to me, as food for them.”
That’s fairly vague for a being so perfect. How does one commit adultery with an idol?
Eight:
You shall not steal.
What if, once again, you command it? Moreover, your avatar does in Luke, when Jesus tells his disciples to steal a horse for him? Should they cite this commandment to him, and disobey, or obey blindly and disobey this commandment?
What if you need food to keep yourself and family alive? Is it okay then? Proverbs 10:3 says, “The LORD does not let the righteous go hungry but he thwarts the craving of the wicked.” How could it be, then, that thousands of innocent children starve to death every day?
Nine:
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
The only problem with this one is that sometimes, people can believe something so strongly that to them, a lie becomes truth, no matter how outrageous. For a great example of that, look up Stockholm Syndrome. In that situation, what is truth? Such a simple ideal can easily be twisted so far that people hearing a falsehood believe it so purely that they believe it deep in their hearts to be true. If it is true to that person, who can say it is false?
Ten:
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
Covet. The word in itself means a multitude of things. Can we get a clearer definition? Am I not to sleep with my neighbor’s donkey or ox, or just not be jealous?
In short, it’s the lack of perfection that lets me disbelieve. If there is some perfect, holy god, and everything was created by his perfect mind and perfect hands, where’s all the perfection?
The easiest way for you to get me (and 99% of all other atheists) to believe would be to use your apparent supernatural ability to tell him to come down out of the sky and talk face to face to us. Tell him to send an angel if he’s shy. Have the angel perform some miracles in a repeatable, testable manner. After all, if god’s power is limitless, this shouldn’t be too far out of reach.
MY GOD…THE ONLY LIVING GOD….IS “THRICE” HOLY…HE is HOLY as GOD THE FATHER, HE is HOLY as GOD THE SON, and HE is HOLY as GOD the HOLY SPIRIT…So therefore HE is “Thrice”holy…three times HOLY….
“The easiest way for you to get me (and 99% of all other atheists) to believe would be to use your apparent supernatural ability to tell him to come down out of the sky and talk face to face to us. Tell him to send an angel if he’s shy. Have the angel perform some miracles in a repeatable, testable manner. After all, if god’s power is limitless, this shouldn’t be too far out of reach.”
HE ALREADY DID THAT…HE CAME DOWN AND LOWERED HIMSELF…AND HIS OWN RECEIVED HIM NOT…AND THEN HE DIED…HE DIED…HE DIED….ON THE CROSS FOR YOUR SINS, AND MINE, AND EVERYONE ELSE…EVEN THOUGH HE IN HIS ALL KNOWING POWER KNEW THAT SOME PEOPLE “LIKE YOU” WOULD SPIT IN HIS FACE (figuratively speaking)HE STILL DIED A CRUEL, AGONIZING, HORRID DEATH FROM WHICH HE AROSE AFTER 3 DAYS TO DEFEAT DEATH, HELL, AND THE GRAVE…SO THAT HE COULD GO TO HEAVEN AND PREPARE A PLACE FOR THOSE OF US WHO CHOOSE TO GO WITH HIM…And you are wrong about the Bible..in saying that most people view it as just a story book, if I were to walk down the street RIGHT now and carry a “book” such as Tom Sawyer in my hand MOST would not even take note…but if I walk the SAME street and hold the BIBLE (by the way the KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE, which is GOD’S inerrant word) people would notice…people would look away, avoid eye contact…because there is power in GOD’S WORD! And if Christianity is such a dying religion..why is it not already dead??
Oh, and by the way ANYBODY can take scripture OUT OF CONTEXT and twist it the way you have above…that does not make you an intelligent person…just one who can read and decide to render his own interpretation, with out having taken in the book as a WHOLE…(and now you are probably going to spat back at me “I have read the entire BIBLE” bologna…)
It is like I stated above…’IF I AM RIGHT (in exactly what I believe) and you are wrong, it will be all you consider throughout eternity.PERIOD. Oh, and God does not torture anybody…HE just lets you make your own choice…you can accept the gift HE gave on Calvary and spend eternity with HIM…or you can choose to pay for your own sin for eternity…it is your decision, GOD is not torturing anyone.
So if you will excuse me I have to go and “brain wash” my children in their home school lessons…which are by the way KJV BIBLE based, so that in 30 years when they are adults…they can still proclaim the banner of truth, in knowing and loving the GOD of their parents and grandparents…a goodly heritage. A Godly heritage.
I hope your kids realize someday what you refuse to acknowledge: that its okay to learn and to doubt and to think critically about religion. That its perfectly reasonable and possible to be a good person without blindly following a faith.
Tips for Christie:
1) Please stop using all caps. Really. Pretty please. All it does is make you seem shrill.
2) If you really, honestly want to get atheists to consider your beliefs, you are doing it exactly the wrong way. Please consider the following:
(a) We all know the story of Jesus and many of us have read the Bible. Simply paraphrasing scripture and yelling your beliefs will do nothing, since we do not regard that book (or your interpretations of it) as a reliable source of truth.
(b) Stop trying to use logic; you are frankly not good at it. For example, you say “And if Christianity is such a dying religion..why is it not already dead??” The use of the word dying requires that the thing dying not actually be dead yet, otherwise it wouldn’t be “dying” it would be “dead”.
(c) Be willing to acknowledge the points that the non-believers are making, even if you don’t agree. For example, we value observable evidence and generally require it for us to consider something as being true. A 2000 year old story does not count as observable evidence because we aren’t doing the observing, only taking someone’s word for it.
3) Don’t come on to a non-theistic site and then get defensive and haughty when people question your theistic beliefs. If you want to convert us, your method fails. If you want to simply share your story, you aren’t making yourself at all sympathetic. If you want to make yourself feel good, go visit a Christian site. If you just enjoy spewing verbal diarrhea at atheists, then I’m not sure Jesus would approve. You’ve made your points; either add something of substance or expect your future comments to be deleted.
Sincerely,
Ash the admin
Just for the record I am not being defensive any more then you all are…I am just simply stating what and why I believe what I do, as are you…And I am not a haughty person by any means, so there is no haughtiness here either, my apologies if any of my posts were taken as such. I do not “blindly” follow a religion…to be perfectly honest we can probably agree on “hating religion”, I HATE religion. Religion takes more people to Hell everyday then anything else…and I personally feel that labeling yourself ‘atheist’ is your religion. I am sorry if I am “no good” at logic…I don’t believe what I believe because of logic I believe what I believe because of ‘faith’…and that faith is not derived from a lack of education, or a broader way of thinking…but very much the opposite. My parents have not always been Christian and my faith is not directly from them, it is ‘personal to me’, as will my childrens faith be…personal to them. Yes, my parents are believers now…in fact my Dad started all of this by quoting Psalms 14:1…but I am independent in my faith from him, even though we share the same faith. I did not just venture onto this site to start a debate…my sister in law sent the link to me…as a new Christian, a old friend had posted this link on a page and she forwarded it to my Dad and myself and a few others to look at (in disbelief!) I am not one to typically jump in on a debate such as this…but I am not ashamed of what I believe and why…and when I came on the first time, my Dad had posted psalms 14:1 and you had rudely responded…so I had to put in my input on the matter too. So have no fear, I will not be hanging around to “Christianize” your hang out…But it has been fun huh?
“Religion takes more people to Hell everyday then anything else.”
Priceless.
“So if you will excuse me I have to go and “brain wash” my children in their home school lessons…which are by the way KJV BIBLE based, so that in 30 years when they are adults…they can still proclaim the banner of truth, in knowing and loving the GOD of their parents and grandparents…a goodly heritage. A Godly heritage.”
I just hope that in 30 years they do not resent you for forcing your belief on them.
@ Christie-
Hi I am a mother too… Do you teach your children all religions and then let them decide which rings true to them or have you already decided for them which is true?
For example, have you tought them every form of Christianity Judaism, and Islam? Have you yourself even studied those religions, they are the most closely related to yours. Not to mention the ancient religions that have multiple similarities….
Have you even taken interest in Hinduism, Native Religions, Unity and every other religion?
If i were to base my life on “religion” i would definately study every one of them before claiming that the one i am is THE ONE… not trying to attack you, i really am curious. Did you CHOOSE this religion, or did you adopt it from someone close to you (maybe a relative)?
Hi Christie,
As Zero mentions in this thread, you bring up “Pascal’s Wager“. There have been several recognized problems with it, two being:
1) there is too high a probability of picking the wrong god
2) there is an incomplete number of choices, since the wager doesn’t include the possibility that the god in question might also reward honest unbelief or punish dishonest belief
In simple terms, one cannot be threatened into belief. Belief requires that I honestly think that something is true. Any fear of being wrong does not, in itself, provide evidence that something is real.
In response, I offer you my own wager: Do everything you can to live a life of courage, integrity, beneficence, and openness; learn to face and overcome your insecurities; seek an understanding of the world based on observable evidence and reason; be healthy in mind and body; expand your ability to be compassionate, tolerant, and generous; attempt to expand opportunity, fairness, and freedom for one and all. If there is no god, then you will have left behind a worthy legacy and made the world a better place; if there is, then that god will certainly reward you for taking full advantage of the life you were given.
* I can rejoice that I have received that precious gift….as can you!
Naturalists, in general, do not acknowledge the existence of god, Jesus, heaven, hell, or a self disconnected from the body. The naturalistic response to your claim is that it is a fantasy designed to ease the natural fear of death. For myself, it makes perfect sense that you would want to ease that fear, and having accomplished that, to share it with everyone.
But I offer two primary problems with the claim:
a) There is no observable evidence for it whatsoever
b) It is too conveniently tailored to our human hopes and fears
A naturalist is one who wishes to confront reality on its own terms, including the brutal and likely fact that our conscious personality does not continue after body death. We value the search for truth as its own end, knowing that we can never know everything there is to know. This is a humbling perspective, one that requires a more mature set of coping skills.
Because of this, it can indeed be emotionally more challenging to be a naturalist rather than a theist, but the real-life rewards are potentially much greater. See, while it might be more comforting to believe in a loving god and eternal life, naturalists are able to spend their time and resources on dealing with the world as it really is. Further, religious fantasy can, for many, act as a barrier to confronting the real world, not just for the self but also for children, as in those cases where theists want their stories taught in school as an alternative to reality-based theories and facts. But when there is no judgmental god to worry about, we can put all our attention on things like living fulfilling lives, making a more just society, expanding opportunities for everyone, exploring and learning about the world, being creative, and finding time to experience the wonder and awe that the universe is due.
Concerning the Dawkin’s commandments…my only question is “what is wrong with the ORIGINAL commandments…given by a THRICE HOLY GOD???”
Putting aside the question of their origin, the Commandments of Moses are merely concerned with proper worship of I AM or are either vague or incomplete. For example, which day is the Sabbath and what counts as “work”? The same Commandment mentions slaves; is this an implicit approval of slavery? Is it “kill” or “murder” and are there exceptions as the Bible itself implies? And is it otherwise okay to beat and rape people?
Let’s face it, as a guide to living a good life and promoting justice and happiness, the Commandments of Moses just aren’t up to snuff.
Jeez. I can’t believe you guys are arguing this much. In the end, nobody gets to find out if they’re wrong or right. It just goes black. Although, it would be totally rad to sit by God’s throne for an eternity singing the same old boring songs. Err…maybe not. Nothingness for the win!
In the end, nobody gets to find out if they’re wrong or right.
For the most part, only believers are invested in finding out if their post-mortis fantasies are right. Naturalists are generally more concerned with living a good life and improving the human condition. Of course, part of that improvement means fighting the often intolerant and ignorant aspects of religious faith. This is why we argue, not to be “right” but to make things better.
Thanks for posting these. They’re lovely.
Religious debate? the above people say it all.
Peace, Simbelmyne
Wasn’t God dead already? Juudas Priest.
brrrr.
Hey, if you’re right (AND: quoting from a human written book doesn’t proof anything) I will stand before Jesus (or Allah, Jehovah, Shiva, Thor name them all) and go to their Hell or whatever. I will not bend my knees.
I will just tell them: “I lived a good live, and there were no proof and more important no reason to believe in You, so fuck of!”
And believing people are no lesser beings than any other living thing on this tiny planet, who said that? They are illogic, without any offence meant.
You will not stand before GOD and say anything…and you will bow your knee, and I hope you can remember this thread when you do.
My prayer for you and all others on this board is that you come to a saving knowledge of repentance here on earth…and bow your knee here in acceptance of HIS free gift of salvation!
In the Biblical stories, Jesus never made people kneel before him, why would he do it in Heaven (assuming souls even have knees)? And if Garonenur is an atheist, would he go before Jesus at all or be sent straight to Hell? If he got to see Jesus first, then what’s the point? For Jesus to mock him before sending him down to eternal torture? Or would Garonenur get to plead his case, hoping that Jesus would take pity on him? If so, then faith wouldn’t be an absolute necessity for salvation. Or is Jesus so cruel as to first show Garonenur the paradise he lost by not believing? And how do the people who made it into Heaven feel about all the people suffering forever, many of whom would be friends and family? If they grieve for them, then doesn’t that negate Heaven being a place of perfect happiness? Or does Jesus make them all forget? And can you begin to understand why we think this whole idea is absurd?
Plus, do you have any idea how petty you sound when you say that you hope that the thing that Garonenur thinks about as he kneels before God just before he is sent into endless fire is your words? Is that the kind of attitude that you think will attract people to your faith?
Face it, your attempts here have made it less likely that any atheists here will convert and possibly made it more likely that wavering believers will abandon the faith. Seriously, you might want to rethink your approach…
No I was not meaning that I would hope that he remember “my” words but how he so profanely put that he would NOT kneel before the LORD…and no Jesus did not MAKE anyone kneel at HIS feet…most who did, did so willingly with tears and adoration for their SAVIOR. And if my words have only pushed away from conversion then GOD forgive me…but the BIBLE says that HIS word will not return void..and I believe that with my entire being! And on the matter of the KJV Bible, yes it was translated by men…who were hand chosen BY GOD to do so, and the passages were translated from the “Textus Receptus” text which is the more accurate text according to many theologians. And I know all of you will…gasp…when I say that “I BELIEVE THAT MY GOD IS BIG ENOUGH TO KEEP HIS WORD PERFECT…” That sounds…what was the word used…oh, absurd, I know…almost as absurd as believing that everything came from some BANG! in space and “POOF” here was life…if you ask me it takes more to believe that nonsense then to acknowledge the evidence all around us that there was a Master Creator…But I know all of you will jump all over that statement too! So this little Baptist Missionary/Preacher wife, stay at home/home school Mommy will sign off for now, this debate is obviously pointless…through the ages that has been proven again and again…Just for the record my faith is not my crutch, and it is not my band-aid to get me through the thought of death, and it is not the idea that I use to make sense in this world…it is my WHOLE purpose for being here, and if I didn’t believe that then none of this would matter anyway…so respect me too, as you ask to be respected, in the fact that I just as strongly believe (if not stronger) that the BIBLE is GOD’S WORD…and PRAISE THE LORD I still live in a country in which I am entitled to stand for that belief!!
No I was not meaning that I would hope that he remember “my” words but how he so profanely put that he would NOT kneel before the LORD
Fair enough, but I still think it is petty for you to wish for a “told you so” moment, as if you relish the idea that he would regret his error before his eternal torture begins. This whole exchange really sound more about you than about Garonenur or Jesus.
no Jesus did not make anyone kneel at his feet…most who did, did so willingly with tears and adoration for their savior.
Out of curiosity, I did an online Bible search for the passages that mention people kneeling before Jesus. In Mark 1:40, Matthew 17:14, and Mark 10:17 a few individuals did kneel in supplication, but no mention of tears, adoration, or worship. That’s about it, I’m afraid. I’m not trying to have a “gotcha” moment, only to suggest that your understanding of the Bible is flawed and that much of what you think is true are really just fantasies in your mind.
…who were hand chosen BY GOD to do so…
Why did God have to pick specific people? Couldn’t he have simply put the right words into anyone’s head? And if so, why didn’t God do that in the first place instead of having all these fake Bible’s going around? And if one Bible is right and all the others are wrong, how can anyone really know which is the right one? Isn’t it ultimately a guess?
almost as absurd as believing that everything came from some BANG! in space and “POOF” here was life
Actually, the idea that God somehow hand-picked people to translate his own work is completely absurd, while the Big Bang and cosmic evolution are theories both rational and in complete harmony with observed phenomenon. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. If you took the time to really grasp the principles and to look at the evidence, it wouldn’t seem so absurd to you.
this debate is obviously pointless
Debate is never pointless, but we haven’t been having a debate. You’ve been shouting your beliefs and ignoring all the rebuttals.
it is my WHOLE purpose for being here, and if I didn’t believe that then none of this would matter anyway…
You say that your faith isn’t a crutch, but then admit that without it, your life would be meaningless. And that right there encapsulates the entire problem. For you, without faith in your interpretation of the Bible, life has no purpose. I sincerely find that incredibly sad.
Of course, I can understand that, if life seems empty without faith in Jesus, you would do anything in your power to fight off doubts and arguments against that faith. You would ignore reason, ignore all the errors and horrible stories in the Bible, and ignore things which are demonstrably true that are at odds with belief. I imagine that the idea of a life without Jesus is terrifying to you, a black hole without direction or substance. I do not respect your beliefs, but I do have compassion for your fear.
I hope that if you take anything away from this conversation, it is that it is possible to have a life that is happy, fulfilling, and meaningful without faith. It really is. I do not walk around without purpose, feeling empty or alone. I really don’t. When I look out at this natural world, I am filled with wonder and reverence. When I am with my friends and family, I am filled with love and gratitude. I am driven to make this world a better place and to give my child a great life. As I said to you before, my cup overrunneth.
No I don’t think you got away with a “gotcha” moment…and my thoughts on the Bible are not some “fantasy in my mind”…go and google Luke chapter 7:36-39 KJV since that is the only authority I will use…And when I stated God hand picked the men who translated the KJV Bible I did not mean that HE literally reached down with a big hand and picked out specific people, HE just chose and used willing vessels…I believe the KJV Bible is the inspired Word Of God, and perfectly translated into the english language. My life is also full of many blessings from GOD, and I am not walking around in fear…but in freedom and liberty in knowing that I have a Savior who is walking my steps ahead of me and caring for me and listening to my prayers and concerns. I am NOT afraid, nor do I live in a constant fear. And you may be able to be happy in your life and with your family, however, I (not caring if you respect my choice in faith)do not personally feel like you can even begin to understand and comprehend true happiness and joy. And I believe the verse is “my cup runneth over..” I find it interesting that you as an atheist use a Bible verse to describe your bliss…psalms 23:5
Christie, I understand that you think your beliefs are not a fantasy. I am convinced that you consider your faith to be the absolute truth. But I think it is worth your while to consider that you have beliefs that aren’t even in the Bible, such as the erroneous claim that people kneeled to Jesus weeping in adoration…you must admit to yourself (not to me) that you invented that image in your own mind (perhaps because you can see yourself kneeling to Jesus in tearful adoration). You have made all kinds of wrong claims: for example you said that people who had a strong faith in Jesus never became atheists, and several people in the comments have shared their stories of doing exactly that (my wife did the same thing in her 20s). If you were wrong about these ideas, what else might you have been wrong about?
You are unable to look at the problems with your faith squarely, because doing so might lead to doubt, which triggers your deepest fears. When the KJV Bible is challenged, you can’t even answer the actual questions; you say ” I did not mean that HE literally reached down with a big hand and picked out specific people, HE just chose and used willing vessels”…no one claimed that God reached down with a literal hand and literally picked people up; that’s an absurd idea. By assuming that was the argument, you sidestep the real criticism, which was why God needed to choose translators when he could simply put the correct words in anyone’s heads, and if he could do that, why didn’t he do it in the first place? After all, it’s his book, why wouldn’t he want every translator to get it right? These issues aren’t just a matter of “faith”, it requires willfully ignoring observable reality and simple reason.
I am NOT afraid, nor do I live in a constant fear.
I suspect that you are terrified on an unconscious level and assuage that terror with your rigid faith in your own salvation. You have given too many hints of this for it to be otherwise. You have said quite plainly that a life outside of your faith “must be sad and empty and hollow”. Obviously you fear being sad, empty, and without purpose (not to mention swimming in fire for all eternity). Who wouldn’t be afraid of those things? But yours must be deep, otherwise you wouldn’t have needed to say that I couldn’t “even begin to understand and comprehend true happiness and joy”, which of course I can not only comprehend but experience. Because if I could experience “true” joy, then maybe your faith isn’t really special after all. Or perhaps what you mean is that you believe I can’t comprehend how happy you are with your faith. I’m glad you are happy; I would be too if I believed I had escaped from the black void of eternal pain. But that doesn’t mean that the fear is gone and it doesn’t mean that profound happiness and fulfillment isn’t available to non-believers.
I find it interesting that you as an atheist use a Bible verse to describe your bliss
I often find it is easier to have discussions with people in their own language.
So did you or did you not look up the reference to the story in Luke chapter 7 verses 36-39…once again I did not imagine this story or image…it was clearly stated in this passage of scripture…so please don’t’ continue to act like I have weird images/fantasies in my mind..I am not on any sort of medication and I do not hallucinate. And I suppose it is your own fear that you think you see in between the lines of what I am writing…because there is no fear in eternal security… I do not fear my Creator or His judgement, because I have been washed in the Blood of the
lamb.
So did you or did you not look up the reference to the story in Luke chapter 7 verses 36-39
Let’s go back to your original statement: “most who did, did so willingly”. First of all, this line implies that some kneeled unwillingly, although I’m sure you didn’t mean that. Second, it implies it happened a lot. A single story of a woman falling to kiss the feet of Jesus is not the same as kneeling (in the sense that I and Garonenur meant it) and certainly doesn’t indicate that many people did it. Only one person did it, the other three being supplicants. Again, you are painting a picture in your head that does not conform to the facts.
so please don’t continue to act like I have weird images/fantasies in my mind..I am not on any sort of medication and I do not hallucinate.
I didn’t claim you were mentally ill. People have fantasies and wrong ideas in their heads all the time about all kinds of things. That’s why it is useful to test those ideas to see if they hold up. So far, many ideas you’ve presented do not, often in the face of demonstrable evidence, and yet you still cannot admit when you are wrong. That indicates a stubborn commitment to verifiably false ideas.
And I suppose it is your own fear that you think you see in between the lines of what I am writing…because there is no fear in eternal security… I do not fear my Creator or His judgement, because I have been washed in the Blood of the lamb.
You continue to verify my points. You are agreeing with me that your fear of damnation is assuaged because you believe that you are saved. The use of the word “security” is even more telling…naturally you wish to feel safe and secure; pretty much everyone does. But your extreme and unbending devotion to a faith that consistently leads to errors in perception and judgment implies a profound fear lurking beneath the surface. Moreover, the use of mantras like “washed in the Blood of the lamb” act as a kind of magic spell to protect you from the sad, empty, purposeless life you are convinced lies in wait for you. Your dreams of salvation and love for this perfect man out of a book are so comforting, so exulting that you are like a young person in love, seeing only what you want to see and ignoring the blemishes.
I’m not asking you to give up Jesus. That would be a pointless request. But I do invite you to open your mind just enough to consider the possibility that a person can live a meaningful, fulfilling, and joyful life without faith. I ask you to consider it because it happens to be true.
I am virtually done going back and forth with you…it is pointless, because no matter what I say or write it will be “absurd” in your thoughts and response. Yes it would be pointless to ask me to give up Jesus…but I’ll give you this, I will consider that there is a possibility one can live a meaningful life with out Christ…when you open your mind enough to consider the possibility that the Bible is God’s Word, and all therein is true…where would you stand when the final lines are drawn-no one said that God was logical, He doesn’t have to be logical…He just IS…Always has been and always will be, the same today, yesterday, and forever! And when the Bible is taken as a “whole” and not just in bits and pieces it gives more insight to the world and the things of the world then any modern book written. My Faith does not define me…or control me…or keep me in fear and bondage…don’t you see it is my faith that sets me free, my actions as a human being are to glorify my Savior, not because I am afraid not to…but because I want to. And as much as you would argue to the contrary…every human being under the sun has a void in their heart and soul…that we try to fill with love, sex, money, things, friends, relationships…etc…but it can only be fulfilled by the Lord. So I suppose I am about as open minded as you are.
I’ll give you this, I will consider that there is a possibility one can live a meaningful life with out Christ…when you open your mind enough to consider the possibility that the Bible is God’s Word, and all therein is true
You should consider it because it is true, not out of a quid pro quo with me. But the fact is, I am perfectly ready to accept that the claims of the Bible are true. As with all ontological claims, all petitioners have to do is either provide observable, repeatable evidence or generate precise predictions that can themselves be rigorously tested. So far, the results aren’t too promising, but I sincerely swear that the moment that adequate empirical evidence comes in, I’ll consider it with a serious mind.
and as much as you would argue to the contrary…every human being under the sun has a void in their heart and soul…that we try to fill with love, sex, money, things, friends, relationships…etc…but it can only be fulfilled by the Lord.
I do argue to the contrary, and have evidence to back me up. Yes, people have desires that ultimately stem from the evolutionary drives of survival and reproduction, and when unfulfilled, they can feel like a void.
But faith in a god is not at all necessary to fulfill those drives or to thrive as a human. Look at Zen Buddhist monks who believe in no gods and have eradicated desire completely from their minds, living lives of perfect simplicity and profound serenity. Are you open-minded enough to acknowledge that fact?
This isn’t about scoring points, it’s about willingness to acknowledge facts that are readily available. I haven’t asked you to consider a single thing that I can’t back up with evidence that you yourself, in principle, could gather or reproduce.
You began this conversation with the following: “How sad and empty your life must be, how hollow your soul must feel…I am sorry that you are proud to stand with other groups of men who have chosen to chose logic over TRUTH.” In this thread, I (and others) have demonstrated that a lack of faith does not necessitate a sad, empty, hollow life; that we both attempt to use logic to ascertain the truth; that the people I “stand with” are those who have had the greatest success in determining universal truths, such as Albert Einstein. If you wish to continue pretending that we non-theists are somehow missing some special happiness or fulfillment that you have, that is your choice. But if you do, you will continue to live in a dream.
“KJV since that is the only authority I will use…”
I had pastors like that. A good many years in my life I refused to read anything but the bible. It was my final authority, and still is and will be until some proof that nullifies that. That said, I can’t take it literally anymore, it’s history isn’t meant to be taken that way and if it is it’s flawed. Once I found out the truth that was being taught by Jesus, compared to what was being spit out by teachers, I moved on to the NIV, and found out that the KJV is the ‘only’ authority because it’s easier to twist the words to fit what the preacher wants. Most people can’t really read that old English, that’s why scholars have translated it to modern English.
What I really want to know from you is this: on what basis and who’s say-so is that KJV your only authority? And why do you believe the people who told you so? They aren’t any different than the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus day. Go read what your red-letters say about them. You’ll never get the true message that Jesus and Paul were giving us as long as you’re listening to someone else’s interpretation of it.
This is what your KJV is to me: “For it is: do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule; a little here, a little there. very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people…” I believe the covenant with death in Isaiah is YOUR covenant with death. It is your refuge, the lie. (It used to be mine too.)
So you see, I have a totally different understanding of the same authority you use. I believe with all my heart I got my learning from God and shed men’s teachings, looking for TRUTH.
But my understanding of who God is and yours are different too. It’s grown way past ‘father’.
By the way, the ‘original’ commandments are also in the Egyptian book of the dead, and conveniently there was apparently also an Egyptian monastery at the top of the mountain where Moses got his tablets. Hmm.
First off i would like to thank you Ash for bringing up cosmic theory, it seems like one of the greatest arguments against religion and god is often overlooked by atheists, and almost never understood by theists.
Due to this i would like to explain to Christie a bit of the cosmic theory, which stems out of quantum theory. I know this may be a bit difficult to understand so i am going to explain it as best as i can. Quantum theory is a theory based on subatomic particles that make up the universe and the space inside of it. In Quantum theory, and this has been recreated in a lab, their are subatomic singularities that appear and disappear at random this is what is believed to have caused the big bang, this subatomic singularity appearing and exploding sending all of the energy outward.
Christie i really hope you noticed that i used the word “believed” because that is the best anyone can come up with, a belief, especially in the case of religion due to the fact that there is no evidence to support it. I will be the first person to tell you that I don’t know what will happen to me after i die, because, well, i am not dead yet, i am still alive and i don’t have any supernatural powers to look into the future and see what happens. That being said neither do you and that discredits your “TRUTH” argument because no one knows the absolute truth and saying that a book told you what was true and what wasn’t would be about as responsible as me telling you that i believed in every word Homer’s Iliad
Again i would like to reiterate that i don’t know what happens after death, i have my beliefs that i can back up with scientific evidence, and i doubt any self-respecting atheist will tell you that they know what happens when they die.
Just wanted to take sometime and point out some things, hopefully show you that we atheists aren’t the heathens that you seem to think that we are.
Also Christie i sincerely ask you to read up on Mediterranean religions and the mythology of the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, and Egyptians that stemmed from up to 3000 years before the birth of Christ and you will notice that all of them have many things in common with Christianity so why is this? Why is it that these polytheistic religions that everyone now looks at as myths and stories are so similar to Christianity especially regarding the story of Jesus?
Oh and before i forget, learn to type please, all of the capitalization really irritates myself, and I’m sure everyone else on this board. While you are at it, i would ask someone to proof read your posts, because your grammar is horrendous.
I am glad someone brought that up, we can disect every piece of grass using science, we can believe other people or books, but that does not mean we will ever know the answer to these questions (the reason i believe religion was created, an attempt to answer the unknown, because it’s scary not knowing). Maybe we are not capable, maybe we are not supposed to know, but we are here, i am a capable smart thinking women, so if there was something to be known i should be able to know it personally without having to take someone else’s word for it.
paragraphs. paragraphs are good.
It is not free. You pay for it by giving up logic and free thinking.
hmpf reply to ChristieJohnson
I will not read the rest of this debate, I pity the USA and all other countries were people like this are more common and have political power.
A lot of people have some great points of view on all this. I am a believer, have been for several years. When my husband and i went to church we tried on many occasions to convert “non believers”. here’s the thing though: it wont work! Each of us responsible for ourselves and ourselves only. We stopped going to “church” many years ago. The “church” as we know it today is not the church that God intended for us. It has become a power system, and the majority of folks who do attend a weekly service are only there because they’re trying to live up to other peoples standards. As believers we need to hold ourselves accountable to God, not to the congregation. My love for Jesus has only grown stronger since leaving the “church”. I belong to the body of Christ, and i do it because its right, not because i feel guilty. Its about love, not guilt. One day we will be judged, by a loving and kind Father. People will only change their way of thinking if they want to.
And what do you think about Dawkins’ alternative “Commandments”?
I think they are a great foundation for living a full and happy life. Except for #7 and #10, because i will not “test” the Father. And i used to question things in the bible and the church, and the church turned out to be an empty vessel, too set in its ways to be of any good to me or anyone with a mind of their own!! But i stopped questioning the bible, because i will not question God. That’s why its called faith
It doesn’t say to test “the Father” but to test your ideas and beliefs. If God is real, he isn’t testable anyway because we only have physical means at our disposal and he is outside the material world. But it is possible to test things like the age of the earth, the origin of species, which planets orbit around others, and so forth. Every time we have actually tested such faith-based theories, they have always been shown to be wrong.
But i stopped questioning the bible, because i will not question God. That’s why its called faith
That is almost exactly right. You will not question the claims of the Bible, one of which is that it is the word of God, and that is called faith. But I’m willing to bet that you would actually question a lot of things in the Bible if push came to shove. The Bible never bans or even condemns human slavery; do you believe that slavery is moral? Lot was willing to sacrifice his daughters to a mob ready to rape them; is that moral? Later his own daughters get him drunk and have sex with him; is that moral? Ignoring such questions is not the same as not questioning them; not questioning the Bible means accepting everything in it with full comprehension.
yea i totally see what your saying. Science has shown us time and again that the stories of the Bible just cant be fathomable. But that’s ok with me. If people want to throw out faith-based theories then they can go about living their lives based on all these scientific findings. I don’t have any desire to change whats been put in my heart.
and when it comes to questioning the claims of the bible, it used to be a struggle. I especially questioned the stories of Adam and Eve, it confused the crap outta me!! I don’t believe that slavery is moral. However time are much different now then they were in the early days. That doesn’t make it any better that people did some terrible things to one another. There will always be bad people. And i must tell you, I don’t agree that not questioning the bible would mean i accept everything in it with full comprehension, because that’s not the case at all! I accept it, but im still learning and growing in God so i am far from complete comprehension. I think anyone who can say they fully comprehend the Bible is a lair!
Ash you seems like a cool person, and i love that you’re so active on this thread!! You really care about what you believe (or don’t believe
) and i respect that.
Science has shown us time and again that the stories of the Bible just cant be fathomable.
Science has created a verifiable, observable model of the universe that fundamentally contradicts the ontological ground established in the Bible. The stories in the Bible aren’t unfathomable, they are merely stories, just like the stories from every other religion. What is unfathomable (for many) is to prefer 2000-year-old stories over the observable hard data and repeatable studies gathered by modern scientists to understand how the universe works.
I don’t believe that slavery is moral. However time are much different now then they were in the early days.
If you are going to be a literalist and accept everything in the Bible without question, then you don’t get to pick and choose which things in the Bible are ok and which aren’t. The Bible says that slavery is ok and Paul even gives recommendations on how to treat slaves. If you think that slavery is fundamentally immoral, then you have an opinion that is at odds with the authors of the Bible. By giving the excuse that “times were different”, you are saying that what was true for Paul 2000 years ago isn’t true for us today. But if that is true about slavery, why shouldn’t that be true for everything in the Bible? In order to answer that, you must question the Bible…there’s no way around it.
I don’t agree that not questioning the bible would mean i accept everything in it with full comprehension, because that’s not the case at all!
What I meant by that is that ignorance does not provide an out. One cannot question what one is not aware of, and so one can only claim something like “I don’t question the Bible” if, in fact, a good faith attempt is made to understand what the Bible actually says. Otherwise, the only honest claim possible is “I don’t want to know what I don’t want to question.”
This has been largely entertaining, but i must say you’re too argumentative for me to continue anymore. And please don’t take offense to the above statement, i guess i just don’t have the energy to keep this up. I love a good debate, but i think i will use my spare time to do things that help others and lift the name of the Lord. I guess what I’m trying to say is that i don’t feel the need to defend myself, my God, and my beliefs, anymore. Your “questioning everything” but the reality of this life is, you will never find the answers you want to find, and you will never accomplish anything or do anyone any good this way. If you feel empowered by questioning every christian on this thread then by all means, do what makes you happy, i will not judge you. I will pray for your salvation, but above all i will pray for your happiness. God bless
I appreciate your civility, and I hope you are able to create more well-being, fairness, and opportunity in the world (my definition of “doing good”).
you’re too argumentative
No I’m not.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that i don’t feel the need to defend myself, my God, and my beliefs, anymore.
Don’t take this wrong, but there is no defense for those things, if by defense you mean rational justifications. By its very nature, religious faith is fundamentally contrary to logic and reason. At the end of the day, the only thing you can really say is “I believe, regardless of any argument or set of verifiable facts that contradict that belief.”
Because of this, it is tiring to speak about faith in the context of reason. I know—I used to believe in the supernatural and had similarly frustrating conversations.
Your “questioning everything” but the reality of this life is, you will never find the answers you want to find, and you will never accomplish anything or do anyone any good this way.
Alas, another claim dashed on the rocks of reality. It isn’t about having answers but about asking questions. It is the discovery that rewards, not so much the knowing. As it’s been said, the more we know the more we know how much we don’t know.
And I have been surprised at the large number of people who have expressed a new-found sense of joy and freedom in letting go of faith and the wonder and gratitude felt towards the natural world. Put your prayers to better use, for I’m already quite happy. There is nothing for me to be saved from, so I may spend all my attention on making a better life for myself, my family, and the world I live in. I hope you do the same.
Wow. As several others have said, Huzzah for StumbleUpon! This is one of the more interesting comment threads I’ve happened upon this morning…
As one of the few non-Christian theists in my circle of acquaintances, it always heartens me to see true, respectful religious/spiritual debate. Unfortunately, “hounds” – a term I picked up somewhere for people who obstinately insist the right-ness of their beliefs despite any and all evidence to the contrary, and who refuse to be respectful of others’ beliefs – always seem to get in the way. Having been raised in the Church of Christ (one of the most conservative branches of Christianity), I have dealt with vast multitudes of hounds on all sides of the equation. Well, maybe not -all- sides…but, hey. It’s just a saying.
Anyway, skirting around tangent lines…having read the entirety of this thread, I am intrigued by the variety of ways that people have dealt with the hounds here. Personally, I never know what to do with them…kindness and honesty never seem to make any headway, so I end up throwing my hands in the air and walking away. I have a deep respect for those of you who have tried to keep a thoughtful, honest debate going with individuals (such as Christie) who simply throw your assertions back at you accompanied by a Bible verse and a capitalized exclamation of sure damnation. I might be stereotyping a wee bit…but the posts here speak for themselves, I think.
On a mildly related note… a question to Christie: “the KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE, which is GOD’S inerrant word”……really? I was under the impression that King James had that translation made as part of his break from the Catholic church, and that along with the unavoidable errors made by the scribes, several deliberate changes were made from older texts… Wouldn’t those older texts be the most “inerrant,” as they are much closer to the source? I have asked people to explain this King James Supremacy business many times, and it has never been fully answered. Not that it’s really a life-or-death issue as far as I’m concerned…it’s just one of those random things I wonder about sometimes.
You better check up on the history of the BIBLE you CHOOSE not to believe in. It is very evident you do not know anything about what you are trying to condemn.
Ceridwen largely has it right, actually. The KJV was written to make it more in compliance with the Church of England and the beliefs of the Puritans.
The translators were given instructions as to various things from the King and given an approved set of existing translations as guides, including the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible.
God didn’t pick out a bunch of random guys; they were all clergy members of the Church of England. The literary goal was to make the spoken text sound dignified and profound. Some parts of the text in the original language were beyond the translators and so many errors crept in.
Of course, the KJV itself has gone through multiple rewritings, and there are battles over which version of the KJV is the correct one.
If you didn’t know these things, perhaps you yourself would profit from some history…
(PS. Ceridwen didn’t “condemn” the KJV. But if it makes you happy, I condemn at least all those parts that are violent, cruel, illogical, and unfair, which really is a lot of it.)
It’s “superior” and “inerrant” because it’s in English.
Of course, it helps that it is of majesterial provenance, and its antiquity lends it that compelling hint of mysticism (necessary to move the faithful to a world apart from the prosaic one they live in).
But it was produced at just that point in history when the British began to sense their god-given superiority. Their culture began to spread out and dominate the world, with the KJV as both flagbearer and inspiration. And so translation was necessary to yoke the locals.
The dominant Christian groups today are KJV-derived Christians. It would never have been any other way.
I pray for all the atheists here on this site. May the Lord show you HE is real and you will have to face judgment one day. By the way….LOGICALLY….If you are right (and you are NOT) and I am wrong I have nothing to worry about….BUT….when you find that the BIBLE is right and GOD is real you will have to spend eternity in a devil’s hell because you refuse to acknowledge your maker and choose not to retain GOD in your mind. I find that people who CHOOSE to believe there is no GOD are generally speaking very in love with their sin(s) and think that somehow JUST BECAUSE they CHOOSE not to believe that it SOMEHOW makes them correct????? Not believing as the scripture I first qouted does not make you superior in any way, but on the contrary according to THE GOD whom you CHOOSE not to believe in. May HE have mercy on your soul!
Morris, we’ve already covered the fallacy of Pascal’s Wager. I’ll simply say again that, in simple terms, one cannot be threatened into belief. Belief requires that I honestly think that something is true. Any fear of being wrong does not, in itself, provide evidence that something is real.
In response, I offer you my own wager: Do everything you can to live a life of courage, integrity, beneficence, and openness; learn to face and overcome your insecurities; seek an understanding of the world based on observable evidence and reason; be healthy in mind and body; expand your ability to be compassionate, tolerant, and generous; attempt to expand opportunity, fairness, and freedom for one and all. If there is no god, then you will have left behind a worthy legacy and made the world a better place; if there is, then a loving god will certainly reward you for taking full advantage of the life you were given.
PS. I deleted your other comment because my patience for all-caps is gone.
You know, if you really study what heaven and hell are, you’ll find that they’re here and now, in your heart and soul, not someplace you go when you die. I have worn out several bibles and I believe this is what it really teaches. So basically, your arguement carries no weight because it’s out of the mouths of your preacher or Sunday school teacher, pretty much verbatum to the way I was taught. The problem is, it isn’t God teaching you, it’s fallible men who try to create as big of a flock as they can to puff up their own egos. You’re accepting the say-so of modern day Pharisee’s, while at least the people at this site are thinking for themselves and sorting out the pros and cons of their own beliefs, looking for TRUTH.
The fact that this piece is stimulated so much reaction, only shows that we are living in a healthy democracy where freedom of speech is celebrated. Interesting PoV.
I was raised in a Methodist family. I even have a preacher in the family, and she is absolutely amazing.
After reflection on my own feelings, I came to find that I did not find God in my heart, and I found myself realizing that I was an atheist. I read all kinds of materials, mostly things I find through the internet, and I started to find a place where I could finally feel like I could find my answers.
Not only have I been forthcoming with my atheism, but I’ve found many friends of mine to be all types of religions. My best friends are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Hindu. Their religions have no bearing on our friendship, but rather their relationship with their deity has a bearing on my friendship with them. They all have a love for their respective deity that is not of which is to convince me or condemn me for not sharing their same view. This understanding of human beings is what makes my relationships with my friends so much deeper than the shallow friendships I’ve had in the past.
I have also found love in the heart of a man, who accepts me as a person. He is a devout Christian and I find it beautiful how much love he has for his God and for me. We have discussions about everything concerning ourselves, which includes our respective beliefs. Never have these conversations turned into fighting or debating on who is right or who is wrong. Instead we discuss our views in a civilized manner. If anything we are interested in how the other thinks and processes life experiences. We love our differences as much as our similarities.
I could never ask for better people to surround me. Instead of ignoring my beliefs they embrace them and are considerate as to how I feel when people (unknowingly) as for a group prayer before dinners, or when people invite me to their church. My friends understand that I must respectfully decline.
In essence: I am a woman (Atheist) in love with a man (Christian) with friends of all faiths, and I couldn’t be happier.
I am curious if your husband wishes in the back of his mind that some day you will “find God” in your heart. If so, how does that make you feel…. If not, does he believe that you are going to Hell? How does that make you feel? Something about your story reminds me of a boy who is in love with a girl so madly but she doesn’t love him back so he becomes freinds with her, forever wishing that they could be together.
I’m glad I’m an atheist. It gives me such a better perspective of the world and the universe around us.
Thanks for this. I haven’t read the God Delusion yet, but, it’s on the list.
I am an atheist. Proud of it.
I think “commandment” 10 can also function as any rational person’s “golden rule.”
Ahh but now will you question yourself, or why you came upon this thread, or why hippos are the most dangerous animal in Africa? My friend, it will take a long time to question everything.
My friend, it will take a long time to question everything.
Then we better get started!
We only talk down to you because you’ve proven yourself to be unable to reason.
Wow ok, I StumbledUpon this…And theres quite an impressive back-and-forth thing goin on here…
And I’d just like to say: it seems like there are some reeeeaal religious crazies out there. I dont know how I never came across any in person before. Presumably because I haven’t lived long enough, I guess.
I think I understand now why some of my friends so harshly condemn these “crazy” religious people….
There is a very large percentage of the population that believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible, including the story of Genesis. As in, Genesis is exactly true, just like science says the Big Bang and cosmic evolution are true.
It’s frankly rather frightening to me that this is so. While on an individual level people are free to believe what they want and fantastical stories cause little damage. But in large numbers, such beliefs inhibit social progress in very real ways.
That’s why I think it’s important that non-theists offer a multi-pronged strategy for addressing this, focusing on advancing the benefits of naturalistic thinking, the downsides to theistic thinking, and the fundamental factual problems of those beliefs. I also want Sacred River (as well as others, of course) to provide a compassionate way of dealing with the underlying fears and desires that theism feeds upon. I think that all of these things have to happen before real change will occur.
“…to provide a compassionate way of dealing with the underlying fears and desires that theism feeds upon.”
You’re right. Mere atheism does not satisfy that. But don’t you think that some people need to believe in a personal god specifically, or is this just a consequence of deeper, more basic needs?
I don’t think anyone needs to believe in a personal god, but I do think that such a belief is a convenient, socially acceptable, and easily-attained substitute for genuine courage and maturity. In our current society, such a belief is often the only available option for people who would otherwise devolve into self-destructive behavior. This doesn’t make theism an optimal or even long-term beneficial path, but I would personally rather have someone in a church than in a hospital or back alley.
What we need, of course, are more options offered at all stages of life for people who are emotionally/cognitively wounded or stunted. This is, in my opinion, the greatest and most important “reconstruction” effort the growing non-theist movement can engage in going into the future. This is the failing of the New Atheist movement—they only tear down, they do not also build up.
phew! two hours later and i’m finally at the end. worth every second. StumbleUpon, huzzah!
Ash, you kill me. you’re like a guy who stands next to the clown at the birthday party and keeps popping all the balloon animals he makes:
“behold, children: a zebra! gaze upon its majesty in awe and accept it as the One True Zebra, Ungulate of Ungulates!”
[pop]
“behold, children: an elephant…!”
thanks for the fodder. it’ll come in handy next time the conversion squad comes to the door. and for the record, i’m an atheist and my deity-free, logic-based life is pretty damned awesome.
Aw, I like balloon animals!
I just can’t stand it when people mistake art for reality, is all. That is actually what I consider all sacred texts to be: art. That’s why I have no argument with people who take positive inspiration and comfort from them.
It’s only when folks accept them as essentially science books that my head explodes. If somebody wants to help feed hungry people after reading about Jesus, then great! When they want to keep women, homosexuals, or other minorities as second class citizens because of some perceived divine mandate or teach “intelligent design” in classrooms, then they’ve crossed the line into La La Land. And those balloons I will try to pop every time.
What about us atheists that spent most of our lives as Christians?
I know all about the “freedom” and “joy” of religion, and it wasn’t enough to swallow the delusion and intellectual dishonesty that goes along with it.
this is dumb. 7 8 9 and 10 could totally be misinterpreted for the use of evil doings. bad choice
Really? Please, tell us how—after ignoring the parts about striving to cause no harm and treating others with love, honesty, and respect—someone could “misinterpret” 7-10 as justifying “evil” acts? Testing assumptions, being tolerant of dissent, not following others blindly, and questioning things actually prevent evil acts. They are exceptional “commandments” that all people of good will can follow without reservation.
I’ve been told I don’t qualify as Christian or as anything else that has a label that is easily identified with. I will say that I’m not an atheist, at least, not yet (but I do date one). I do happen to have an opinion like everyone else here on most of the comments left that seem rather harsh against atheism. The last time I checked one of the basic rules of Christianity is to not judge because that’s up to God. Christians are supposed to be understanding and respectful. Telling a lot of people in here that they’re going to hell seems like an odd way to show that you’re not judging them. I’ll yank some scripture out if you really want me too. God actually never tells anyone to trust him blindly, or to follow him without reason. That would be the Churches. You know, even in the Bible, Jesus listened to people’s points, and addressed them accordingly when discussing their beliefs. He was also into physical proof and facts, if you want to take it one step farther in that belief system. He allowed Thomas to stick his hands in his wounds to show he was the real deal. Why is it so hard to follow the example of looking for proof? If you’re going to throw damnation at me, you may want to ask what happened to Thomas.
I’d still like to know what Christie is going to do if she faces another belief system in the afterlife.
The other important part of Christianity was this whole forgiveness bit and turning the other cheek. I figure if IF somehow it comes down to it and people are judged like judgement day says they will, if people say to God/Jesus, “I’m sorry I didn’t believe in you,” and they mean it, then they’re saved or whatever in that system anyways. You can stop praying for their souls, they’ll have it covered.
This article started with commandments that basically ask you to respect people and things around you and to have a healthy interest and self awareness, why is that such a problem?
I learned a long time ago to ask questions. The value in being able to accept facts and truths into my life, to feel that I can ask questions and not worry about the outcome, even when it is a core belief, is where I find my real freedom.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, KC.
I think the issue of freedom is an interesting one. Many theists like Christie and Morris talk about the freedom of faith. But I think it’s important to understand what one has freedom from. I assume that most Christians would say they are “free” from Hell; I think many Protestants also think they are free from behavioral restrictions because they will be forgiven and saved purely due to faith. I actually believe that what they are free from is the need to think critically and to take full responsibility for their lives.
Ironically, Naturalists are also free from Hell, since we don’t believe there is a Hell to go to. Naturalists revel in their freedom to question and think critically. The upside to this is the freedom to live a rational life, to form convictions and adopt values grounded in logic, evidence, and compassion. We are free from the fear of damnation, free from superstitious guilt, and free from the cognitive dissonance that religious faith often produces.
Yes, we have a price to pay for our freedom: we have to take full responsibility for our lives. We can’t put our lives in “the hands” of a god. We can’t hope that a god (or spirits or celestial bodies or occult forces) will make things work out—either they will or they won’t based on a combination of chance, dynamic environmental conditions, and individual behavior. Within this matrix of natural forces, we are responsible for our own actions, our own well-being, and the effects we have on others.
Responsibility is scary. Acknowledging the limits of our personal agency is scary. Realizing that death is probably the end of our life is scary. But we humans are a robust lot—we have it within us to face those fears and to thrive in spite of them. At our best, we can use those fears to inspire us to mature in amazing ways that can lead to profound fulfillment.
And that, to my mind, is real freedom.
I lived in a Penacostal (strict Christian) household as a teenager and i was tought that someday someone would try to convince you that God is not real, and that there would be so much temptation (happiness) offered if you left the church (backslide) and that if that happened you would never come back… How perfect is that. WOW, what a sell… talk about using fear as a weapon huh! If God (Christian God) was real, which i am not saying he isn’t, then would he want you to believe in him only because your too afraid not to?
actually Dawkings said in an interview that found this list on the internet. I too did see that a while before the book was published.
Who cares??? Words words words…………
You know, maybe you’re right, Steve. I originally thought that exploring ideas about how people can live more fulfilling lives and improve the human condition was perhaps worthwhile. But then I realized that the only way I could think about and communicate those ideas was with language. Then I realized how meaningless it all was since there is never any correlation between words (i.e. ideas) and actions.
Damn you, words, damn you to Hell!
Too complicated. I like the two that Hunter S. Thompson came up with – seldom quoted, but he said simple that he tries to live his life “without hurting anyone or ripping anyone off” – that is good enough for me.
Yeah, we don’t want too complicated. Of course, Thompson’s rules only say what he won’t do. A mature set of “commandments” should also say what one aspires to doing. Somebody could just sit in their house and watch television all day and fulfill Thompson’s rules, but it would be hard to argue that that kind of life was really moral. But hey, if it works for you…wouldn’t want your life to be too complicated, after all.
I agree Mr. Gordon…my religion consists of being respectful to others, even if I disagree or just plain can’t stand you. Getting along with others is an art, and the more I separate my personal feelings, the more in touch I am with the knowledge that I assist in creating a better world for others. There is a sacredness in respect. Seeing yourself in another..is when I experience the greatest joy.
Wow, what a brilliant thread, an utterly enthralling read.
@ Ash, sorry about the choice of words but you have the patience of a saint.
@ Morris and Christie, whilst I disagree with you and am myself of the atheist worldview I hope you contribute again if only to stimulate debate.
@ Bren “But it was produced at just that point in history when the British began to sense their god-given superiority.” As a Britisher myself what do you mean God given sense of superiority, we know it naturally
Which kind of brings me to my point, I sense the majority of the heated debate here is probably emminates from the US Christian experience. As someone brought up in a fairly typical Church of England way i.e. school R.E. lessons and assemmbly, going to church if you were in the cub scouts a few times a year and otherwise only to pretend to the vicar you were serious if you were about to get married or having a child baptised (important for school entry even among atheists) and maybe the odd church fete it interests me how there seems to be a divergence between the US and UK given that the US has seperated religion and state yet seems to have a more heated debate, whereas Britain which still has 26 Bishops in the House of Lords is generally a bit more, well, tea and crumpets about the whole thing.
I’d be interested in the views of people here on why the divergence?
I’d be interested in the views of people here on why the divergence?
In addition to the relatively low levels of educational achievement in the U.S. that others here have discussed, I’d hazard a guess that two of the most significant factors are:
1. the fact that, unlike the U.S., the U.K. was not founded by a bunch of puritanical Christians; and
2. the fact that the U.S. was founded by, and then added to through immigration, people who were leaving an old land and looking for a new way of life, trying to fulfill their dreams. This makes Americans, on the whole, an extremely idealistic people, and idealism and faith – either religious or non-religious faith – are almost indistinguishable. The very idea of the “American Dream” is to allow a belief in oneself to carry one to success, without letting such small things as perceived facts get in the way. In a lot of ways, this has been a very successful approach, and the position of the U.S. as the world’s only remaining superpower is probably due in no small part to this type of “can-do” attitude. On the other hand, of course, a “belief in belief” will inevitably incline people towards the kind of faith-based thinking which does not reflect quite so well on the American people.
Your first point is potentially misleading. The U.S. may have been “founded by a bunch of puritanical Christians,” but it was not in any sense founded as a Christian nation. Its founding documents and their framers were informed by Enlightenment values rather than Biblical ones.
Probably the factor that contributes most to this divergence is, ironically, the separation of church and state. This relates to your first point in that many people came to the new world to escape religious persecution. As the nation began to take form, the loudest proponents of a secular government were those of fervent religious faith. They wished to avoid the religious persecution they and their fathers had experienced in Europe…and their secular, enlightened government were rightfully willing to grant it to them, in the name of liberty.
But this allowed for great religious diversity (as opposed to the religious stagnation that comes with, say, a state-sponsored church). Diversity breeds struggle and options and revivals; i.e., religion flourished in the U.S. because of the religious diversity allowed by the separation of church and state.
And so for this and other reasons (like your second point) religion has taken hold of the typical American imagination to a degree greater than in the religiously domineering Old World.
Hi Gino.
Regarding the divergence you mention, I think that Erwin’s comments are insightful.
I would say that the modern manifestation of US fundamentalism is due to a combination of substandard education, poverty, and political manipulation. To be more precise, when the standard of living in America was on the rise, the level of fundie craziness fell, but it’s back up since the middle class started collapsing in the early 1980s. When things started looking more bleak, the very people who helped make it that way used it to their advantage by stoking religious fervor, replacing the belief in the American Dream with faith in a militant Jesus.
However, it’s also important to note that in the US, atheism is on the rise and Christianity as a whole is waning. I think that a large portion of the “fence sitters” are splitting, with half leaving religion and the other half moving into the Evangelical camp.
My hope is that if we can rebuild the middle class and improve education, we might see a fall in Evangelical Christianity in the next generation of Americans. I don’t expect it, but I can hope…
Thiests are predominantly moronic brainwashed sheep without the ability to think freely for themselves.
I’m moronic…and you can’t even spell “theist”??
I suppose it is easier to name call then it is to actually conceive the thought that us “theist” are a whole lot more then just “moronic, brainwashed sheep.” I am very opinionated and I have the capability of thinking on my own….the fact that I choose to believe differently then you does not give you the right to step all over me as a human being. I guess that you think that if you just don’t believe that the Bible is true, that somehow makes you exempt from what it says…okay??
read below if u want to learn somthing Johnston.
Ash,
I know this may sound like strange flattery to you, but after reading through all of this I found myself itching to comment on your ideals. As a curious Atheist, I personally find myself tongue tied and confused when attempting to get through a religious debate. This could be of many reasons. One, I lack the amount of intelligence and knowledge I wish I had. Two, I don’t even fully understand my own beliefs.
Through reading your responses to the christian bigots, I found myself learning more about and better understanding my own beliefs. Facts, examples, you have them all. Instead of calling religious people “idiots” (the tempting way), you point out information and let them do what they will with it. This is they way I’m currently working on thinking, and thank you for your help.
One last thing:
As a current college student, I find myself chatting with many many many young “intellectuals”. Most of which are self-righteous and pompous, but smart nonetheless. Almost always, they say they are Atheists, and are willing to jabber on about it forever. On the other hand, most of my old friends or people I know who didn’t go to college, or dropped out of high school hold on to their old (judgmental) religious beliefs. I find this to be quit interesting. Does the pattern prove anything? I believe so.
A little flattery can be a nice thing now and again, so thanks
It can be hard having a religious debate with theists, in part because many have devised or adopted techniques to ignore and bypass basic logic. In such cases, using reason is useless because reason doesn’t have any effect; they aren’t interested in logic, they simply want to be right or special.
I have found only one way around this, which is to acknowledge the underlying emotional and cognitive motivations for faith. In the case of devoted theistic religion (as opposed to casual “Christmas-only” believers), I maintain that the general need is two-fold: existential anxiety (i.e. fear of death) and the drive for agency (i.e. to feel in control).
Theistic religion is custom made to address these drives—i.e. immortality, safety from Satan/Hell/suffering, prayer, etc. When one comes to depend on these things for well-being, the idea of letting them go can seem terrifying. Having a basic compassion for this difficulty can sometimes get through to people, or at least make you a little less crazy by their irrationality.
Many atheists mistakenly believe that the problem is simply that believers aren’t very bright or aren’t thinking clearly. In general, this is not the case at all, or at least not more so than any other group. Religious faith is fundamentally about one’s worldview, which becomes deeply integrated into one’s self-identity. Our psychology is designed to protect our sense of self, even when that sense is built upon delusions. The harder we knock against it, the firmer their resolve becomes. That doesn’t mean we don’t continue to advance the cause of reason and point out facts, but we can do it with a respect of the emotional needs that make religious delusions so prevalent.
With all this in mind, I wonder if your experience with college and non-college people might reflect this idea of worldview and self-identity and the effect on their ideas about religious faith.
We have not yet proven the existence of God.
Until we have real proof we have to rely on our feelings, anecdotes and “faith”. These do not provide concrete evidence.
In the absence of proof, one surmises that God could, or could not exist. End of story. We don’t have the proof. The jury is out.
I mean, a God or gods COULD exist. It’s just that, as of yet, we don’t have proof; a God could just as easily, not exist.
So, Atheists, you too, are just as bad as religious people who blindly believe the existence of God without having proof. You have no proof that their is not God. You do not know for sure. If you think you know for sure that no God exists than you are making an assumption and are no different from the religious zealots. You are the same.
Perhaps gods or no gods are made real by our belief in them, like the tooth fairy! Do things become real when we believe in them? Like the ol’ “Every time a child says they don’t believe a fairy dies?” thing?
That opens up a whole can o’ worms about how the universe actually works. Until we know, we can’t say with certainty. IMO, the truly rational question all and don’t draw hasty conclusions.
Until we have real proof we have to rely on our feelings, anecdotes and “faith”…In the absence of proof, one surmises that God could, or could not exist. End of story. We don’t have the proof. The jury is out. I mean, a God or gods COULD exist. It’s just that, as of yet, we don’t have proof; a God could just as easily, not exist.
Wrong.
You really need to read the book referenced in the original blog entry to learn just how many things are wrong with your statement above.
Most importantly, it is certainly not the case that “a God could just as easily, not exist” as exist. Inability to “prove” a position absolutely does not mean that it is as likely to be true as it is to be false. This is a huge fallacy. Regardless of the fact that we are unable to “prove” the non-existence of God (and, incidentally, what’s with this idea of saying proof that he does exist would be the only relevant evidence? What sort of chance does that give anyone?) it can nevertheless be demonstrated that God is very, very unlikely to exist. So unlikely, in fact, that atheism is the only rational position to take on the matter.
Natural selection is the only valid answer to the problem of improbability that humanity has ever constructed, and “design” is not a solution to the problem of improbability at all, but a compounding of it. Natural selection shows that complex life – and, arguably, any form of complexity at all – does not arise as anything other than the result of a long and cumulative process of small changes from simple origins. An overwhelmingly large and diverse quantity of empirical evidence supports this idea. If true – which it almost certainly is – then this precludes the possibility of there being anything complex at the beginning of the universe, such as your god. As an analogy, the strength of the evidence that this is true is approximately the same as the strength of the evidence which suggests that on earth gravity tends to pull objects towards the centre of the earth rather than away from it. In other words, so strong as to make a belief to the contrary completely and utterly irrational. Agnosticism is not a rational position to take towards the existence of god, and the question of “proof” is completely irrelevant to this.
Furthermore, the infinite number of possible absurd alternative theories of “god” or “gods” or other forms of creator makes singling out any one of those alternatives as a focus for belief utterly irrational. As many people have said, any religious believer is an atheist with respect to all the millions of possible gods he could pick except for the one or ones he chooses to believe in. Any religious believer already actively disbelieves in a huge variety of possible gods.
Even after all that, the absurdities associated particularly with the Christian god – such as the logically contradictory idea that he is both omnipotent and omniscient, and the idea that him murdering a planeload of passengers but allowing a single child to escape with life-changing injuries somehow demonstrates his “mercy” and “compassion” – shows that believing in this particular conception of god is even more irrational than believing in, say, the Greek or Roman gods, or believing in a tribe of creator-goblins.
There is much, much more evidence to show that religious faith – and any particular manifestation of religious faith – is conclusively absurd and irrational, other than these three simple examples I’ve quickly pulled off the top of my head, and it is available to anybody who cares to look for it. We do not “have to rely on our feelings, anecdotes and ‘faith’” at all – this is a lie people are told by their religious leaders. The evidence is there in bucketloads. Again, on the question of the existence of god, neither faith nor agnosticism are rational positions. Neither atheism nor science are “faith” positions, and to attempt to lower both of them down to the level of religious belief – which is the level of the gutter – is both offensive and demonstrative of sheer ignorance in the matter. It really is high time people started understanding this; there has been no attempt to conceal these facts.
So, Atheists, you too, are just as bad as religious people who blindly believe the existence of God without having proof.
No. You insult human dignity all around the globe every time you attempt to put religious faith on an equal intellectual footing with reason and skepticism. Atheism is a rational and evidence-based position; religious faith is an absurd and fatuous position.
If you’re going to believe in a god, at least have the common decency to accept the irrationality of your position, instead of dishonestly spouting these tired and hackneyed false platitudes which you’ve been fed as devices to ease the understandable embarrassment of thinking in a faith-based way.
Perhaps gods or no gods are made real by our belief in them, like the tooth fairy! Do things become real when we believe in them?
No, they don’t. Really, they don’t.
That opens up a whole can o’ worms about how the universe actually works. Until we know, we can’t say with certainty.
We do know. Try believing there is a fleet of Ferraris in your garage, and then go check if they’re there. Better yet, trying believing they’re in my garage instead. There are mountains of evidence every single day of your life which demonstrate categorically that believing in things doesn’t make them real or true. You have to deliberately want to be a fool to avoid seeing this evidence.
“Agnosticism is not a rational position to take towards the existence of god, and the question of “proof” is completely irrelevant to this.”
Other than this statement, I like your arguements. But God doesn’t have to take the form of all-knowing creator and whatever else gets spewed out. ‘God’ could be found just by being in tune with nature, or trusting your ‘instincts’, or the unseen force that turns birds and bees on a dime at the same time, or in the vivid dream of a loved one the night they pass on, or in the peace one finds when meditating. Who knows? It’s a bit harsh to demand that the ONLY rational conclusion is the one you came to.
But God doesn’t have to take the form of all-knowing creator and whatever else gets spewed out. ‘God’ could be found just by being in tune with nature, or trusting your ‘instincts’, or the unseen force that turns birds and bees on a dime at the same time, or in the vivid dream of a loved one the night they pass on, or in the peace one finds when meditating.
None of which are ‘God’. If the word ‘God’ gets to mean anything any particular individual wants it to mean, from a supernatural creator being with super-special magical powers to create universes all the way down to a lump of coal, then sensible discourse on the subject becomes impossible. Perhaps that’s what theists want.
At the very minimum, ‘God’ has to mean some kind of being that is intelligent, has conscious volition and has supernatural powers. Whether such a being created the universe, or whether there are other such beings that were created by another god or merely infiltrated the world another god created is a matter of (pointless) debate, but if you’re not talking about supernatural beings you shouldn’t use the word ‘god’ as anything other than a transparently poetic figure of speech in the way that Einstein did.
If you don’t believe in this kind of supernatural being, then you’re an atheist. If you don’t believe in this kind of supernatural being, but you’re ‘in tune with nature’, and you ‘trust your instincts’, and you have a ‘vivid dream of a loved on the night they pass on’ and if you find ‘peace…when meditating’ then you’re still an atheist. You don’t get to stop being an atheist just by finding something you like and deciding to call it ‘God’. You can pretend you’re not an atheist for as long as you like by doing that, but you’ll still be one.
One of the more obnoxious forms of anti-atheist sentiment is this idea you’ll come across every now and again that criticises atheists on the grounds that “I don’t believe in the same kind of god that atheists disbelieve in, so all their arguments are specious.” This is an intellectually dishonest word game. If you believe in any kind of supernatural being then you do believe in the same kind of god that atheists disbelieve in. If you do not believe in any kind of supernatural being then you don’t believe in any kind of god, and you’re an atheist too, and no amount of pretending that ‘god’ is ‘the forces of nature’ is going to change that. If you want to call the peace that you find meditating ‘God’ then you are at liberty to do so, but all you’re going to achieve by doing that is the fermentation of confusion, most of which will be your own.
“At the very minimum, ‘God’ has to mean some kind of being that is intelligent, has conscious volition and has supernatural powers.”
Why? Because that’s what the religions have been shoving down our throat forever? How about just a different form of being, albeit with intelligence? Maybe it sounds like a Trekkie thing, but we know so little still about the universe, and we’re such a small part of it, there’s too much we don’t know. We can’t say the universe has always been here, as we know it anyway, and I don’t know enough about physics to say the energy must have been there forever. That said, logically I guess atheism is the more sound conclusion. For emotionally fragile people, theism can be a helpful tool to the psyche. For those who had it shoved down their throats their whole lives it can be crippling as well. To me, I guess whether god is real or not is irrelevant, as it would no longer change the way I live my life. If there is God, I’m sure I’m good with him. If not, well, it is what it is. And so I am prepared to discuss God with people that believe, so as to hopefully get them to search more and get past all the theology that keeps them repressed. I applaud you for choosing logic. My son believes as you do, but then we didn’t raise our kids in the churches. I choose not to choose anymore, because I don’t have to. I’ve said I lean toward theism, but that’s 50+ years of sorting it out that’s hard to just toss aside. I can say I’ve known the experience of communicating with god, but the reality of that is it’s the experience of communicating with that inner voice of reason and truth. When I needed it most, it was the voice of god to me.
Because that’s what the religions have been shoving down our throat forever? How about just a different form of being, albeit with intelligence?
This is about basic definitions. I essentially agree with Erwin above when he says that an atheist is one who, at a minimum, does not believe in the existence of any being (regardless of the “form”) that is in some way separate (i.e. transcendent) from nature. Someone who believes that a “god” is not separate from nature (i.e. immanent) can be called a pantheist, although (as Erwin pointed out) such a person is also an atheist if the “god” in question is not seen as a discrete agent. I think that Einstein was a religious naturalist, in that he used the word “god” simply to describe his own sense of reverence regarding the monist, materialist nature of the physical universe.
Why?
Because that’s what the word means. As I said, if people just make up random definitions for words as they go along, communication becomes impossible.
Imagine if a scientist excitedly announced that he’d discovered life on Mars, and then at the huge press conference that followed he explained that by “life” he actually meant “red rocks”, and that everyone else was just being presumptuously arrogant for assuming that “life” had to mean something different. He’d be jeered off the stage with howls of derision, and rightly so. This is the kind of thing that happens when you deliberately use words in a manner contrary to accepted usage, especially when you do so as a device for perpetuating a favoured but false world view.
To me, I guess whether god is real or not is irrelevant, as it would no longer change the way I live my life.
Well, it’s your prerogative to think that way if you choose. I, on the other hand, do not think reality is “irrelevant”, for many obvious reasons.
I’ve said I lean toward theism, but that’s 50+ years of sorting it out that’s hard to just toss aside.
If being difficult was a good reason to avoid doing something, humanity would be in a much sorrier state than it is today.
It’s all about baby steps. I’m a little slow, but I get there eventually. I appreciate your response, and if you have to define god, and use the ‘accepted’ definition, I guess you can count me an atheist. I still think of myself on the fence at this point.
Hello Rocky,
Erwin did a fine job answering most of your points. I have only a few additions.
We have not yet proven the existence of God.
I would be impressed if someone found even a shred of empirical evidence for God, much less proof. There is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever for any preternatural forces or beings of any kind, whether gods, angels, demons, or the “z-waves” behind astrology, crystals, magick, and reiki.
Until we have real proof we have to rely on our feelings, anecdotes and “faith”. These do not provide concrete evidence.
While you are correct that feelings, anecdotes, and faith are not sources of reliable, empirical evidence, it is not true that we have to rely on them when it comes to understanding nature. In fact, we have found such things to be consistently unreliable and inaccurate. This is why science has had such a profound success: in the aggregate, it is unmatched in its ability to correct for human error and to make mind-bending discoveries that feelings and faith would never have made.
In the absence of proof, one surmises that God could, or could not exist. End of story. We don’t have the proof. The jury is out…I mean, a God or gods COULD exist. It’s just that, as of yet, we don’t have proof; a God could just as easily, not exist.
Untrue on all points. We are constructing a model of the universe—from the micro to the macro—that is getting more complete all the time. In everything we’ve learned about how the universe is constructed and functions, we’ve yet to come across any sign of a preternatural force. While the odds of a god are not technically zero, neither are they 50/50 as you suggest. Based on what we now know, a god can very easily not exist, while such existence becomes increasingly unlikely.
So, Atheists, you too, are just as bad as religious people who blindly believe the existence of God without having proof. You have no proof that their is not God. You do not know for sure. If you think you know for sure that no God exists than you are making an assumption and are no different from the religious zealots. You are the same.
This is an old canard. I’ll be boring and repeat the typical answer to this: atheism is a faith like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
There is no “proof” that unicorns, the tooth fairy, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster don’t exist, but not believing in them isn’t a “faith-based” position. The atheistic position simply says: there is no rational reason to believe that something exists when there is no evidence for its existence. We can take it further and say that science is showing us that indeed a god is not at all necessary for understanding the universe. Let’s go a bit further and say that we can offer reasonable explanations for why humans invented gods in the first place. In light of this—no evidence for a god, no need for a god in nature, and likelihood that gods are human inventions—assuming there is no god is the only rational position.
Perhaps gods or no gods are made real by our belief in them, like the tooth fairy! Do things become real when we believe in them? Like the ol’ “Every time a child says they don’t believe a fairy dies?” thing?
No, sorry.
That opens up a whole can o’ worms about how the universe actually works. Until we know, we can’t say with certainty. IMO, the truly rational question all and don’t draw hasty conclusions.
Pure conjecture doesn’t open up a “whole can o’ worms about how the universe actually works”. Offer some actual evidence that things become real just by believing in them, then we can all open that can together.
The “truly rational” position at this point, based on all the evidence, or lack thereof, is that no gods exist (and also that we can’t make things come into being by believing in them). Until we find any reliable evidence for such things, we shouldn’t make the hasty conclusion that they might exist.
Also, the idea that we have to know everything there is to know before we can discount a god is an absurd position. That’s like saying that I personally have to know everything about how something works before I can discount a suggestion that a car runs on candy or that a little man turns out the refrigerator light. It is not rational to say that every possibility is equally likely and therefore all conjectures should be equally considered. I don’t need to know absolutely everything in order to conclude that something doesn’t exist when there is no evidence for it.
The atheistic position simply says: there is no rational reason to believe that something exists when there is no evidence for its existence. We can take it further and say that science is showing us that indeed a god is not at all necessary for understanding the universe. Let’s go a bit further and say that we can offer reasonable explanations for why humans invented gods in the first place. In light of this—no evidence for a god, no need for a god in nature, and likelihood that gods are human inventions—assuming there is no god is the only rational position.
An excellent summary, Ash. I’ll add two more items to that list:
4. Positive evidence against the conditions necessary for religious claims. As I mentioned in my response to Rocky, the idea that complex things must arise from simple beginnings directly contradicts the idea that there can have been a complex creator to kick it all off – and, despite specious claims that God is “simple”, such a creator must indeed have been complex. If such an idea is accepted then this is direct evidence that the universe could not, in principle, have had a creator.
5. As well as the absence of evidence for the existence of God, there is also a positive lack of evidence that many – although admittedly not all – types of God claims would predict. Although the general principle that “absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence” holds, this is not always true. Theories make predictions, and an observation that such predictions do not hold is evidence against those theories. For example, the only way we can disprove the claim “it is snowing outside” is to look outside and observe the absence of snow falling from the sky. In this case, absence of evidence absolutely is evidence of absence.
Although the deist conception of God would not be affected by this, any ideas of God as a being who listens to the prayers of the faithful and intervenes in the natural order of things on their behalf absolutely would be. If these types of religious claims are taken seriously, and millions of people regularly pray to God and regularly succeed in getting him to intervene on their behalf, then we should regularly see departures from the nature order of things that the known laws of physics would suggest. But we never do. On a cosmological scale, for instance, we never see planets, or comets, or stars departing from the course that physical law would predict they take, ever.
As a separate idea to these two additions, it is also interesting to reflect on other properties that “God” is often supposed to possess, over and above his simple existence. It is often suggested, for instance, that evolution could have been “kick started by God”, and that it was simply his method of creating a diversity of life. Yet, if this were true, since evolution is an emergent process then God would not have known and could not have known at the beginning that any form of intelligent life at all would result from that process, let alone specifically human life. Thus, although it’s logically possible that God could have “kick started” evolution, if this idea is accepted then it should also be accepted that God cannot possibly have any kind of “plan” for us, and could not possibly have constructed – in advance – any kind of heaven or hell for human souls to inhabit, since he wouldn’t have known that humans would evolve at all until much later.
We can imagine a similar line of reasoning to any type of emergent process. It’s not inconceivable, for instance, that we may one day be able to create an entire universe in a laboratory, and current ideas about mutiple “curled up” dimensions may mean that such a universe would look microscopically small to us. But, the nature of emergent processes, not to mention quantum uncertainty, would mean that it would be absolutely impossible to predict what form such a universe might take even seconds after it’s creation, let alone billions of years into its creation. It might also be true that the scientists who created such a universe couldn’t even see into it even after the event. Thus, a god who relied on such natural emergent processes may, in principle, be utterly unable to manifest any kind of “plan” through such a creation, and be utterly unable to observe or intervene in it in any kind of way afterwards. Such a creator would be entirely unworthy of the term “God” and clearly unworthy of “worship”. It may turn out that creating new universes in such a way is trivially easy with the right equipment, which would make the term even more inappropriate. Naturally, such an idea would also completely fail to address the problem of where those creators themselves came from, in exactly the same way as the “argument from design” fails to do that.
Therefore, even to the extent that progressing knowledge may not rule out a creator, it certainly may go a long way towards ruling out some of the qualities that creator might have, and ruling out some of the things he might or might not be able to do with his creation. A lot of theists seem to want to look for ways to continue to justify a belief in any kind of creator, and then use whatever small shred of hope they find to justify their belief in their particular version of God, even if the evidence they used to support any kind of creator belief directly contradicts their particular version of it. Even if people may be able to grasp desparately onto the hope that science and reason doesn’t entirely rule out the possibility of a creator, that doesn’t mean that it can’t rule out their idea of what that creator is like. In order to maintain a belief in God in the face of mounting evidence, it may be necessary for theists to give up some of their beliefs about God, such as his omniscience, and his ability to intervene in the natural order of things.
To pre-empt a particularly specious line of argument, it is no good at all to start claiming that God is somehow outside the natural order of things, and isn’t subject to the same physical laws the rest of us are subject to, such as quantum uncertainty. If God isn’t subject to physical laws, then you are ruling out in principle the idea of ever being able to “prove” anything about him, because the concept of proof relies for its very existence on the regularity of physical law, and if that’s the case you shouldn’t be involved in a discussion like this to begin with.
Perhaps what we call “God” is just all existence. The “One” and “Many” existing simultaneously. I feel that the Universe (Multi-verse?) is alive. That we are in a living thing/being/life-form/life-system. I suspect that what we think of as the universe is likely a much larger creature or life form so large that we can barely fathom it. I sometimes see us as little cells or organisms performing a function within a larger creature, in a micro/macrocosm. The solar system does look a bit like an atom:)
@Rocky, the idea you are putting forward falls under the general title of Pantheism, which can be seen as a subset of Religious Naturalism. Some pantheists, tho not all, believe roughly as you do, that god = universe and that it might be “alive”. I use quotes there because if the universe is a living thing, it is alive in no sense that we currently comprehend.
I am impelled to caution you against analogy-based beliefs. A solar system does have a rudimentary resemblance to an atom to our mind’s eye, but that is more about our conceptual interpretations than about any real similarity. In other words, the analogy you are drawing is purely symbolic, not functional. Any organic properties you see in the macro structures of the universe are projected there by you.
At the same time, I see no problem with interpreting the universe as a living creature so long as it is purely symbolic. Allegory can be a powerful thing, and is sometimes necessary to connect with incomprehensible ideas and things that exist on scales radically different than our own. To wit, I can respect the poetry of saying that the universe is like a living being, but not the analogy-based assumption that the universe is a living being in the way we understand that term. To do so does nothing to help us really understand the nature of universe.
@ Ash: Your words “I use quotes there because if the universe is a living thing, it is alive in no sense that we currently comprehend.”
How can you say this? First of all, the universe is alive in a sense we can comprehend. I comprehend it. It is alive as we are alive or in a way that we have not yet described or put words to. That does not mean we cannot comprehend it. I comprehend it quite easily. So, perhaps do others. So, it is both untrue and unscientific to say that “we” (you can’t speak for everyone) cannot understand how the universe can be alive. It’s pretty simple, really.
This error in your logical thought process (or lack thereof) makes me suspicious of other ideas you put forth. You make a grandiose assumption not based in fact and pass it off as if it is truth. This is not scientific and may not always lead to the truth.
Your tone “I see no problem with interpreting the universe as a living creature so long as it is purely symbolic” implies that yes, everything is okay as long as I SEE it that way. That is zealotry, my friend. The universe being alive is no more reserved to symbolism than is your own existence. As I mentioned in my first post, I require proof and logic to determine absolute (or as close to absolute as possible) truth. I did not say that I know for sure.
You cannot prove that the universe is not alive. Until you can, I would say that it shows faulty thinking to assume otherwise. I would further say that, in my opinion there exists more evidence of the universe being alive than of it being inanimate.
It is faulty to say that “To do so does nothing to help us really understand the nature of universe”. You do not know that those thoughts do not help us understand the nature of the universe. That is an incredibly biased statement. You cannot speak for everyone. You cannot say “us”. You do not speak for everyone. The ancients long ago thought of the universe as living. Inside of us is living. Around us is living (even rocks, some geologists think: http://purpleavenger.blogspot.com/2006/07/french-geologists-claim-rocks-are.html)
So, if around us is alive and we live in a living world and inside of us is alive and living, would you not suppose that perhaps, out there, in space, it could perhaps be alive too? Albeit not in way that we have described and understood yet. We come from an incredible human bias, that’s all I am saying, and until we know for sure we should not make absolute statements. They hold back our progress. So often in the past we have been proven wrong in our ignorant assumptions. Keep an open and discerning mind.
You cannot prove that the universe is not alive.
And scientists can’t prove that electrons are not the color porslax. I don’t know what porslax looks like exactly or what its technical features are, but if it hasn’t been disproved then it has just as much of a chance to be true as any other claim about electrons. Right? Of course, it can’t be proved either because the claim is so vague as to be meaningless, while the entire concept of an electron having a color is more or less pointless in terms of understanding the nature of electrons, but if we have enough faith, it might come true anyway! I now believe that scientists should spend a portion of their time and resources studying my porslax hypothesis, because until it has been disproved (which will be never) it is just as good as any other theory about the nature of the universe.
So, if around us is alive and we live in a living world and inside of us is alive and living, would you not suppose that perhaps, out there, in space, it could perhaps be alive too? Albeit not in way that we have described and understood yet.
Okay, let’s suppose the universe might be alive. What properties does the universe have that makes it alive versus not alive (i.e. what would it be like if it weren’t alive)? If it is alive in a way that is utterly different from our experience of life as we know it, what justifies the use of that word? How does this concept help us better understand the universe (and by understand, I mean in terms of actual composition and process, along the lines of elementary particles and physical laws)?
Since you are at the speculation stage of your Living Universe Theory, I am not requiring direct evidence, although that would be optimal. However, in order to take it to the next level, you will need to provide some testable predictions…based on your speculations, what do you think we should see and how would we study the universe to confirm the answers? Do you predict that your theory will overturn or add to our current understanding of the universe (i.e. Relativity and the Standard Model)?
Now then, there are some rules. For example, it’s fine to start with speculation, but you can’t answer all these questions with just more speculation. At some point, you need to provide some evidence we can all observe and test; otherwise, your theory will remain in the Wacky category. Also, saying that we can’t prove these ideas are wrong doesn’t count as positive evidence. Please take that one to heart, because so far it has been your logical Achilles’ Heel.
Keep an open and discerning mind.
Great advice, but that’s not what you are asking me to do. You are asking me to have a credulous and undiscerning mind, to accept any and all “not-yet-unproven” conjectures on an equal basis. To be discerning means to have standards for what ideas are considered worthwhile. My own standards are based in reason and empirical evidence, and within those standards I am very open to new ideas and ways of thinking about the world.
I recommend this entertaining video on the difference between having an open mind and gullibility.
It is alive as we are alive or in a way that we have not yet described or put words to. That does not mean we cannot comprehend it.
Yes, that’s exactly what it means. You can’t comprehend something if you can’t even describe what it is you’re supposed to be comprehending. Falsely claiming that you can comprehend something that you can’t even identify and actually comprehending something that you can are two very different things.
This error in your logical thought process (or lack thereof) makes me suspicious of other ideas you put forth.
It’s entertaining to see you (falsely) talk about errors in logical though processes and then, in the very same sentence, imply a fallacious ad hominem argument.
You cannot prove that the universe is not alive. Until you can, I would say that it shows faulty thinking to assume otherwise.
According to your “logic”, then, if you cannot prove you’re not an idiot, then you show “faulty thinking” by assuming you’re not one. According to your logic, it is “faulty thinking” to assume that gravity is not really caused by vast legions of tiny, invisible, flying goblins pulling objects around space using little silk ropes with hooks on the end.
There’s only so many times people can tell you it’s irrational to believe (or assume) something in the absence of evidence for it, particularly when that something is an absurd and extravagant hypothesis, regardless of whether or not it’s been “proven” false. There are an infinite number of foolish and absurd ideas about the universe, a vast number of which cannot be proven false, even in principle; according to you, it is “faulty thinking” to not consciously give every single one of those ideas credence. The fact that it would be utterly impossible to do this should be another clue as to the error in your thinking, here.
I would further say that, in my opinion there exists more evidence of the universe being alive than of it being inanimate.
Present that “evidence”, then. For instance, if we take a standard definition of “life” as “being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally”, present your evidence that the universe grows through metabolism, or reproduces, or adapts to its environment. Present your evidence that the universe even has an “environment”, for that matter.
Alternatively, present a coherent idea of “life” which is defined in terms other than these standard ones that we currently comprehend, which would include those things we already know to be alive, and exclude those things we already know to be inanimate. For instance, present a coherent alternative idea of “life” which would not require us to accept that corpses are alive. Since you’ve claimed that you already “comprehend” such an alternative idea, this shouldn’t be difficult for you to do, one would imagine.
They hold back our progress. So often in the past we have been proven wrong in our ignorant assumptions.
If our “ignorant assumptions” have “so often….been proven wrong”, then they clearly haven’t “[held] back our progress” very much, have they? One can just as easily argue that what’s really going to “hold back our progress” is wasting time entertaining speculative and absurd ideas such as the universe being “alive”, as opposed to directing the majority of our effort towards expanding ideas which have already been shown to correspond well with reality. After all, the pace of scientific and technological progress has increased exponentially since scientists stopped seriously entertaining ideas which were not supported by evidence.
Sure, every now and again someone like Einstein will come along and out of the blue propose a radically new idea on the basis of pure thought, but unlike your random conjectures Einstein’s ideas actually were tested within a relatively (no pun intended) short period of time, and confirmed by evidence. If, instead, those scientists had spend their time wondering whether the universe is made from bagels because that idea “hasn’t been proven wrong” then we’d probably still be living in caves and eating mammoths, if we were even able to make it that far. “Progress” comes from matching up potential explanations to actual observation of the world, not from seriously entertaining wild speculations because they haven’t been “proven wrong”. Of course, if you have the convincing evidence that the universe is “alive” that you claim you have…but we’ll soon see, won’t we?
Keep an open and discerning mind.
It’s often been said that there’s a fine line between keeping an “open mind”, and rampant gullibility and idle daydreaming, but there’s actually an enormous gulf between them.
bicker bicker bicker…..i believe that there is a higher power, and he wants us to at least try to live in harmony with each other and the world, so what’s so offensive about a list of moral ways to live?
Dasha, I think that what’s offensive is the idea that arch-atheist Richard Dawkins offered an alternative to the Ten Commandments. In themselves, there is little to be offended by in his list. If his name and the Ten Commandments had not been mentioned, this post would have had zero comments.
In fact, I would bet that if this exact list was handed out by a pastor at a mainline church as a set of ethical suggestions, there would be no uproar at all. It’s all about context. This reflects the power of framing and how reason breaks down when irrational beliefs feel threatened, even indirectly. After all, nothing in this list says “Condemn the Bible” or “Don’t believe in Jesus”—the threat only needs to be implied to get the hackles up.
it’s great to see that people that have never actually read the bible have alternatives and answers to their perceieved notion of a demagogue such as dawkins
I propose that the list Dawkins presents is a superior alternative even for those who are intimately familiar with the Bible. He might be a demagogue, but that doesn’t make him wrong about his positions, and this is a great case in point.
I suspect that many fence-sitting believers would gladly abandon their superstitions if they understood that non-theism does not require living a life absent of morals. Moreover, naturalists can construct a moral system that is actually rational and relevant to human flourishing and happiness. That is one of its key advantages over dogma-based religion.
Sounds like what Jesus had to say. I wonder who copied who?
Jesus missed a few of these. Remember what he said to “doubting Thomas,” who was adhering to commandment number seven?
Sounds like what Jesus had to say.
Hm…not really. The only thing he is quoted as saying that is close to these is #1, but there is a big difference between the positive version given in Matthew 7:12 (“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them”, a repetition of the far more ancient “golden rule”), and the negative one that is actually reflected in Deuteronomy, Tobit 4:15 (“Do to no one what you yourself dislike.”). I might enjoy being tickled, say, but that doesn’t mean I should tickle other people; it makes more sense to say that if I do not like to be hurt, annoyed, or lied to, then I should avoid doing those things to others as well. So good ol’ Tobit was a bit wiser than Jesus, it seems.
The non-harm sections are closer to Buddhist or Jainist teachings than to Christian.
Numbers 5-10 are not reflected in the New Testament at all, and are actually quite at odds with it.
Why should I follow commandment number 10?
If I’m not mistaken, those Ten Commandments are from Ebonmuse, who writes his own blog at Daylight Atheism. His original post on it is here and his review of the book is here.
Thanks for the credit! I’ve updated the post accordingly…
After spending a couple hours every other night or so with this page, I finally made it through. What fun. Ash, I might not be 100% with you, but I’m close and I love how you make your arguments without belittling people. Great thread, great site. As for the list, it could have as easily been ripped out of Readers Digest, but there’s wisdom to live by in there too. I love how it spawned this great discussion.
Congrats on finishing it all! It has indeed become quite a thread. And to think that the original post was just a toss off…
aha! you are going to be really popular in heaven.keep up the good work.i recommend that you read the bhagavad gita:)for intellectual purposes only;)
I am amazed that the word of god is open to interpretation,if it is truly the word of God wouldn’t the message be clear and straight forward. But since the big three have so many different interpretations it is clear that it was written by man. God can make the heavens and the Earth but can’t get the message out without it getting misinterpreted. Interesting, God can’t communicate properly, what if God messed the instructions on making the universe because he misread them?
This is why i love StumbleUpon, and Ash, you are my hero.
Now for my actual comment. I may only be 15 but for 8 of those years (not including when i was a small child) I was an extremely religious person. I went to church every Sunday, went to catechism every Tuesday, and actively participated in every aspect of my church, it was only until I began reading INTO the Bible that I realized what I really believed. I believed that I didn’t NEED the Bible to know what was right, that NOBODY should need the Bible to decide that. I read it and I thought about this for many years. In fact, I think about it everyday, and it isn’t because I DOUBTED my religion, its because i listened to it, and I payed attention to it. When people read a book, they want to know what happens to the characters, not me, I search for messages, depth, understanding, experiences, feelings, interaction when i read. The characters in books aren’t telling us their stories merely for the sake of entertainment, they want us to get something out of it. I could go on and on about this, but i don’t find it necessary. And I want this to be clarified, I respect you for doing what is right, but I also want you to know that you can do a much better job at it. No, I’m not saying you should change, but I’m letting you know, I’m not. When you question what you already know, you find truth, when you find truth, you will question it, but it isn’t going to change the results.
Hi Kyle, thanks for your comment. So, if I’m reading you accurately, you are saying that after many years of religiousness, you discovered that the Bible is not necessary for goodness. When you read stories in the Bible, you aren’t worried about the historical veracity, you are thinking about the lessons they can impart to you. But then you lost me….
I certainly agree that I could be “doing a better job…”, but I’m not sure what job it is to which you are referring. Please expand on this.
You say you aren’t changing. Ok, you should just be yourself. And you don’t think I should change. Ok, I’ll just try to be myself, too. But what kind of change were you talking about?
Finally, I agree that questioning what we know can lead to new knowledge and insight. But I’m not sure I agree that once a truth is found nothing will change “the results.” Very often truth is more complex and multifaceted than initial findings indicate. Further, while there are certainly objective truths in the world, how we approach them can radically change our perception and experience of those truths. Just food for thought there.
Kyle, you just keep on thinking and questioning and learning. Pretty good for a fifteen year old so far
Ash, now that I’m reading what I wrote, I can see how I lost you. I thank you for replying to my post, that was very helpful. Next time I post something I’ll make sure to try and make it more easily understood. “While there are certainly objective truths in the world, how we approach them can radically change our perception and experience of those truths,” I was trying to say something more along those lines than what I actually wrote but could not think of a way to put it into words.
Kyle, don’t worry about it. I’m not sure I could have written what you did when I was 15. We are talking about things that are not easily described in conversational english. Just keep on writing!