 |
 |
 |
encouraging ex-Christians
Letters from Visitors to ExChristian.Net and Replies.
Sent in by Jake O
i am extremely disapointed in this web site. indeed athiesm is a belief and should be repected, indeed religion has flaws and can be challenged, but at no time should you ever critisize others and put them down, and to insult them because you dont agree. you think you are so sophisticated and intelligent over those who believe in a higher being. you think that religion is the source of all of what is bad in the world when really the worst people in history were athiest. ex. adolf hitler, napolean, stalin. not to mention how many people has religion given hope, comfort, and healing to?
To monitor comments posted to this topic, use
.
i am extremely disapointed in this web site. indeed athiesm is a belief and should be repected, indeed religion has flaws and can be challenged, but at no time should you ever critisize others and put them down, and to insult them because you dont agree. you think you are so sophisticated and intelligent over those who believe in a higher being. you think that religion is the source of all of what is bad in the world when really the worst people in history were athiest. ex. adolf hitler, napolean, stalin. not to mention how many people has religion given hope, comfort, and healing to?
To monitor comments posted to this topic, use
.
A. You can't spell. It's Napoleon, not "napolean".
B. You're here regurgitating the same old tired, false myths about the world's worst Despots. Hitler was Catholic, indeed,he never renounced his faith. Napoleon, while not a "professing" member of any church, felt Religion was important for a country to survive. OK, I'll grant you Stalin. And raise you a Torquemada and his Inquisition.
And:
C. You don't think for yourself, coming here like some wind-up Homunculus, spout off what you heard while you were handling rattlesnakes this morning.
Stupid stays stupid, Pills won't help...
On the other hand religion has been the source of misery, poverty, murder, bigotry, intolerance, wars, suicide, slavery, child molestation, racial hatred, and much more.
Jake, you are woefully ignorant. You know what you were told to know. But there is hope. Many of us here were in the same boat. Hopefully you too will be honest enough with yourself to check into the real answers and accept what you find.
If you choose to believe simply because you like to believe ... well that's not truth is it?
You had some preconcieved ideas about it and it hasn't met those?
For my part insults and put downs are usually for the religion itself, not specifically for people.
I ridicule christianity.
I try to wake christians up by showing them how ridiculous their religion is.
It's christianity that is the insult to human intelligence and human dignity.
Religion doesn't have a monopoly on giving hope, comfort, healing, etc.
Those are human traits.
Religion just gives pat answers to issues that otherwise seem unanswerable. That doesn't make those answers right, just comforting to uninquisitive minds - yes, those not so sophisticated or intelligent (or at least those not even trying to be...).
Those uninquisitive people who have had all their issues resolved by the pat answers of religion can become overly protective of those answers, those comforts.
That kind having power is what leads to, "all what is bad in the world"...
It includes several quotes from his speeches and papers wherein he professed to worship Jesus. It also includes a picture of the belt buckle worn by Nazi soldiers with the slogan "Gott Mitt Uns" ("God with us") - doesn't sound atheistic to me.
Not saying Hitler acted like a "good christian" is supposed to act, but the same can be said for a lot of folks who proclaim that they're more moral than atheists, agnostics, and ex-christians - not that I'm naming names, jakeo.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
What about all these parents who continue to refuse medical treatment and are protected under the law because of their belief in your god? Wouldn't they be under the same catagory as Hitler?
What about all these priests who continue to rape little boys and girls, or simply beat the shit out of them? The bible states very clearly that children are fair game. Shouldn't they be under the same catagory?
What's my point? That no matter how many Atheists you can come up with that have murdered people or done some kind of immoral act, there will still be millions more Christians who have done far worse.
Besides this, what is wrong with expressing one's opinions on religious beliefs? Why is this so wrong? The religious express their opinions on lack of religious beliefs by calling people who hold not belief, "immoral." Because a good portion of them actually think that without religious belief, one cannot be moral. Which is already self evident that this notion is wrong.
Lets get a grip on reality.
Ted Haggard the Crystal Meth smoking gay hooker fucker? Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, these are just the big names. For every one of these guys there are a thousand David Bairds (Youth Pastor recently busted on raping young boys).
Get an education or do a little research before making a fool of yourself. Only Stalin claimed to be an Atheist.
It also gives a false claim of eternal life in hell to billions of people not lucky enough to have lived after jesus(supposedly) lived, or not lucky enough to actually get to hear of "salvation" , or not irrational enough to believe in a flying god-man or whatever.
The worst people in history were all men. The worst people in history were heterosexual. The worst people in history ate meat. My point here is to show you how easy it is to lump people together using whatever criteria is required to get you to believe that there is a correlation. When in fact there isn't one.
And when someone is being a moron I have a responsibility to the human race to correct them if I can.
Okay, here goes:
1. Jesus isn't real
2. Jehovah isn't real
3. The Holy Ghost isn't real
4. The Tooth Fairy isn't real
5. Magical Unicorns are not real
6. We are not going to an eternal oven in the middle of the Earth for our sin of not believing in the above five and...
7. You aren't going to an eternal day spa in the sky just because you do.
What, exactly was insulting about my informing Jake that his beliefs are false? Was it insulting when you found out that a bearded man in a red suit hadn't really been the one bringing you presents at Christmas? Was it insulting for you to find out that the Tooth fairy hadn't really been the one slipping money under your pillow?
If telling the truth is insulting, then I am guilty as charged.
I've been copying and pasting the headlines of all the articles posted by the WM concerning arrests and crimes committed by christians into a Word document. These go back to about July 2005. The document thus far is 21 pages long. These are just the headlines, not the articles. Whenever someone tells me that I cannot possible be moral because I'm an atheist, I pull up the document and begin reading off the headlines. One night I read the entire thing to myself. So much sexual abuse, especially with children. And no, these are not just Catholics! I was nauseated when I was done.
I personally know of two cases of sexual abuse by christians. In one case, I knew the perpetrator, and in the other, I knew the 3 (all under age 5) victims. Neither of these were posted on the website. How many other cases are there?
Like you, I was taught as a christian that morality comes from the christian god, and that all atheists are automatically horrible people. But, after witnessing more than enough crap and seeing that jesus doesn't change a damn thing, I finally learned that morality/ethics are, as Spacemonk said, human traits.
Your bible says "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Instead of judging atheists to be the worst people, get to know a few of us. Your eyes might be brutally opened.
Cheers,
chris
As far as comfort and hope goes, Jake you can rest assured that my post-Christian "spiritual" life is doing much better than the emotionalism I used to run off of. There is much comfort knowing that your free too ..
I did not really want you to deconverted,but please be a little more tranquilled
Althought I am not atheist,I am once like you too.When a christian who founds out that all his faith is not real(this point pls,just assume it)He felts so bad that he post about his feelings to the net.Well,I was just like you,tell him the contents like yours and tell him to pray to god.i simply did not understand him.But after several weekslater,i confront a simillar problem as him.On that day,I really understand his feelings.the fact is,you will never understand until you experience it,so you rejected it.
Okok,let's make it easier.if you keep thinking some facts is real,but one day u realised that all things are contradictory from your beliefs!think about it.maybe you'lll simply reject this.
I knew you will never understand why(therefore you'll reject it)but unless you experience it( it is a good and bad thing if you really do).maybe you should simply stop coming to this website...you cant stop people talking,and so they cant stop you neither.
"Hitler, in no way, was a Christian. He claimed to be so in order to advance his agenda amongst the elite who were unwilling to give up their faith, shallow as it might have been. Please be careful when you believe what somebody says. As P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute."..."
Really, now. May I have the name of the document that you've seen that gives evidence of Hitler faking his Christianity (like Bob Tilton and Peter Popoff)in order to push his agenda?
And please, if it's the so-called "Table Talk" transcripts, SPARE us. "Table Talk" is in such disrepute that there's doubt if it was even written while Hitler was alive.
But you're dead-right on about Barnum. There *IS* one born every minute. Especially on Sundays, when they give the "Altar Call" in churches all over the world.
John of Indiana
I can't find anything insulting in your message. I think it is precise writing and good advice.
AMT is of course entitled to his/her opinion, but to me seems like someone who is unable to see the forest for the trees.
For Jake, further reading is strongly advocated. He appears to be behind the times.
"Popes maimed & were maimed, killed & were killed... Without question, these pontiffs constitute the most despicable body of leaders, clerical or lay, in history. They were, frankly, barbarians. Ancient Rome had nothing to rival them in rottenness."
– Peter de Rosa (Vicars of Christ, p48)
1095 - Pope Urban II calls upon the Franks to invade the more civilized Muslim world. Begins five centuries of warfare in the form of the Crusades.
"Warrior Monks" - Muslim heads catapulted into the besieged city of Antioch by Christian Knights (Illumination from Les Histoires d'Outremer by William of Tyre 12th century, Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris).
1204 Christian crusaders sack & ruin greatest Christian city, Constantinople.
1209 Pope Innocent III launches Albigensian Crusade against Christian Cathars of southern France. 7000 massacred in La Madeleine Church alone.
1478: Pope Sixtus IV, in alliance with King Ferdinand of Spain, establishes the Spanish Inquisition. Jews, Moors and heretics will be imprisoned, tortured and murdered for centuries.
The bisexual Sixtus, though suffering from syphilis, fathers children from his elder sister.
1600 After a seven year trail before the Inquisition, Giordano Bruno, who had the audacity to suggest that space was boundless and that the sun and its planets were not unique, is condemned and burned at the stake.
1633 Galileo is brought before the Inquisition. Under threat of torture and death, he is forced from his knees to renounce all belief in Copernican theories. He is sentenced to life imprisonment. He dies in 1642 and the charges against him stand for another 350 years.
1793: Last 'witch' burning at Poznen in Germany
1814: Society of Jesus, suppressed since 1773, is restored. The Inquisition continues until 1834, Church-sanctioned torture until 1917.
Hitler, a Roman Catholic, is never excommunicated for causing the death of millions; whereas Martin Luther was excommunicated for translating the Bible into German!
On March 12, 2000 Pope John Paul II attempted to purify the soul of the Catholic Church by apologizing for 2000 years of "sins" committed by the church – quite some compensation for twenty centuries of terrorism, extortion and murder!
September 11, 2001: Devout Muslims fly three different jet airliners and their passengers into crowded buildings in New York and Washington D.C.; proclaiming "God is Great!' before impact. Death toll was around 3,000
Pastor Jerry Falwell states, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."
More at: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
1000years.htm
Chucky Jesus
I actually took a course in college, albeit 3o years ago, which was called, The Psychology of History. We read a book that was similar in name. We studied Hitler, Diraeli, and Stalin. Hitler was not raised in a typical Catholic home. In fact, his mom was most likely insane. She used to take him for walks and then she would defecate on neighbors' lawns. I don't mean to be crude but I wanted to drive home the fact that his upbringing was bizarre. It is interesting that he despised the Jews and pushed the Aryan race. There is evidence that he might have been hiding the fact that he was born Jewish. His selfloathing caused him to view only Aryans as perfect.
So, I reiterate my point. He was not a practicing Catholic in any sense of the word.
Frankly, all of us are screwed up, one way or the other.Moral atheists,Christian missionaries, and Buddhist monks all have to battle selfcenterdness. Or, am I wrong? I am finding this discussion most interesting.
Dee
Thanks for the highlights about the inquisition. Christians need to be reminded that their religion is not any better than Islam. They often point the finger at atheists, muslims, etc. They need the finger pointed right back at them. Such Hypocrites they are!
I know I'm diverging (from Jake's post, that is), but I find Dee's comment; "We're all screwed up...all have to battle selfcenteredness" really interesting. I myself have left the Christian faith, (quick history - I was church pianist for 12 years, Sunday School head for 8, head of mission work, volunteered at an anti-abotion clinic (insert shame), and the list goes on to scary lengths...). After which, I can't help but look to myself for answers, or rather - questions, that enable me to continue on this journey called "life". To "battle" selfcenteredness, does that imply that one has to look to some other "self" as a means to understand existence and its purpose? And if so, is that what you believe to be the underlying flaw in organized religion? Is selfcenteredness freedom from moral conditioning? And if it is, when we reach the age where we even have the capacity to assess what is "real" or "true", who can say how much of our "selves" actually remains? Where is the purest form of truth?
Ultimately, whether Hitler was a Christian or an atheist, or anything else for that matter, does NOT MATTER. The man was clearly a psychotic ruin. No amount of morality in any way of thinking could have fixed him. As you pointed out, his upbringing was very bizarre. That kind of thing, to put it bluntly, can fuck a person up.
So if anything, Hitler is a case study in why mental health is so important. A (supposed) belief in God does NOT make mental health any better. IT gives one purpose, sure, but requires that one lies to oneself. Had Hitler been an atheist, at least he would have been honest with himself about the world around him. And that might have opened the door to being honest with himself about the shape he was in. But of course, Hitler was neither Christian NOR atheist. He was merely screwed up.
On a final note: yeah, we all have to fight selfishness. But selfishness is an instinct that has helped us to survive. Being too selfish can result in destruction. So we need to find balance. Religion is not about balance, but imbalance.
You know, that's an excellent question. I'm going to answer in the negative. One cannot mitigate selfcenteredness by attaching to another "self", regardless of the characteristics of that other self. It's still attachment, and all it really does is put a larger barrier between oneself and reality.
Atheists are different from all theists. They simply have no belief in god. That doesn't make them moral or immoral. Everyone starts life as an atheist. Many (OK practically everybody) are indoctrinated into some religion of some sort,and some free themselves from religion eventually. (Perhaps we should call ourselves reborn atheists.)
One thing that atheists and theists both do is to try to ascribe a moral system to atheism. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. Some atheists go further and say that you can prove that any god that has characteristics can be dis proven, but it remains that atheism is not a system of morality nor is it a belief. An atheist's morality and ethics come from some additional morality.
Perhaps the most immoral atheists living today are those who populate the pulpit. I would be willing to bet that greater than 80% of those in the pulpit realize that there is no god yet continue to mislead others. The need for power and attention is ubiquitous. Who would give that up?
I am rather new at this sort of discussion and I apologize if I don't express what I am thinking as clearly as I would like to. I used the term moral atheist because, as I think through these issues on this site and Richard Dawkins site, I have found many folks who stress that they are moral atheists. I use that term out of respect. I understand that atheists are characterized as having no belief in a god but they do have beliefs in what is good and, perhaps ,other things like what is beautiful, what is awesome,what is stupid, hypocritical, etc.
I truly do not feel that I am sitting in judgment as you claim. For example godboy claims that about 80% of pastors are atheists. Is that a judgment or a fact?
I think we could all agree that when one states that he/she believes in something but acts contrary to that belief in all aspects of their life then their beliefs might be open to question.
I couldn't agree more with the statement that everyone puts god into a context that they believe in. However, I may say that I am French, learn to speak French, enjoy French cooking but, if I am born in China to Chinese parents, I am not a native Frenchman no matter how much I wish to be.
So, is there any standard that can be agreed upon in society that would allow us to say He is Hindu or He is atheist? Must I always take what they say as, forgive the term, gospel truth? Is it polite to ask one what he/she means by this terminology?
Also, could you all help me to understand something. I agree that the world is filled with religious hypocrites of all stripes. Many folks on this site have stated that they do not believe that religion is ever beneficial. However, how do we deal with a Martin Luther King, Jr. or a Mother Theresa? Both claimed to be following Jesus and they did many good things. They believed their faith gave them strength. Were they mistaken? I kind of admire both of them. Am I wrong to do so?
Have a good night.
Dee
You should see the Penn and Teller episode on Mother Theresa, it was interesting ... I'd sure hate to get care and mercy under her hand!
But in regards to your question - There is simply nothing good that comes from religion that can not be found without it. There is also the propensity of religion to allow people to corrupt and twist those that follow it into doing terrible acts in the name of god.
So the only thing that makes religion acceptable is god, not all the other dogma of it. So the real question is "Is the god religion describes real?". And this is where we stand. Most of us here have determined that god, as described by Christians (or any other religion IMO) is not real.
You have religion which *can* offer some good qualities, but more often than not is used, abused, and twisted to control people. Why continue to accept such a system when any *good* that can come of it can be had without it? God, as described by that religion, is not real. If there is some creator it is nothing like the petty thing that religion describes it as. Why accept the corruption that religion brings?
In my mind its a moot point. Religion is more trouble than its worth. The very core of religion demands people stop thinking and just believe and that is just too tempting for hustlers and cheats to pass up.
If you cannot show me real proof that your god exists then all your doing is standing firm to an idea of a god that you like. But that doesn't make it true.
Arguments of free will and hidden gods are ridiculous and easily shown to be irrational. There simply is no good reason that religion should be acceptable.
You seem sincere...
I said I was "willing to bet" that 80% of the pastors were atheists (i.e. they have no belief in the existence of a god) - not that it was a fact. I may be off on the numbers, but it is my opinion and I stand by it.
When you say, "Just because someone says they are Christian, Hindu, or even atheist, does not mean they are meaning the same things that an adherent of that faith or nonfaith might believe." AND "Just because Hilary Clinton claims she believes in God doesn't mean that she does." AND "Hitler, in no way, was a Christian. He claimed to be so in order to advance his agenda amongst the elite who were unwilling to give up their faith" you are making judgments about who is and isn't a Christian.
For example, you say Hitler was in no way a Christian. I beg to differ. He contributed to the Catholic Church, professed his Christianity, and sought to eliminate Jews just like the Catholic Church had done centuries earlier. During his reign the Catholic Church was silent about his treatments of the Jews. Some decades later, Mel Gibson sweeps the nation with a Christian S&M flick that again vilifies the Jews and captures the heart of many a Christian. Is he a Christian? In my book he is...
Just because you and others see a figure in history as a monster, doesn't mean that they aren't Christian. As I said before, every Christian (and Jew, and Muslim etc...) defines his or her own god. They make that god as an alter ego. As an atheist looking at the truly baffling array of gods I must accept it when someone tells me they are a _____.
Your analogy that a person born Chinese will always be Chinese regardless of what they call themselves doesn't hold water because no one is born as a Christian or anything else. They are all born atheists. Until they are indoctrinated into some religion, they are atheists. Remember, the only thing necessary to be an atheist is a lack of a belief in a god or gods.
You are judging each time you disqualify a person who claims to belong to a group that you are a member of (ie Christian.)while welcoming a well thought of person into your "fold" like Martin Luther King, or Mother Teresa.
You said, "I couldn't agree more with the statement that everyone puts god into a context that they believe in."
That is not at all what I said.
I said, "Each believer creates their own god from the materials they want to use." That means that there are literally billions of gods. No two gods match up as there are as many different twists as there are people.
The bible is such a fun book BECAUSE it contradicts itself and presents thousands of vague, context insensitive passages. If it were written clearly and decisively it would have faded only a few years after its creation. As it is, it offers a cornucopia of tidbits, all neatly numbered for quoting just before passing the plate.
There is big difference between selfishness and acting in one's best self interest. Lots of people don't seem to get that and confuse the two.
Most times I do not find selfishness and self interest to be the same thing, and many times they are in direct conflict. For example, I find it is in my best self interest to have friends. If I act in a standard selfish manner and simply take what I want for my short term needs, I don't end up with many friends. This is not rocket science.
People seem to be programmed to behave in ways that help their own best self interest. Which is a good thing, as self interest motivates people to behave morally because it is simply better to live in a society where most other people behave morally.
My personal belief from watching selfish people is that they don't really understand what their own best long term self interest is, and thus behave in self destructive ways.
Bottom line is that self interest works just fine with evolution to give us a moral society, without the need for some bronze age god to foist his confused morals on us.
We do better without him.
Were Mother T and MLK only driven by their religion? Are you saying that without their religion Mother T and MLK would have done nothing good in the world?
If that's what you think, then there is absolutely no reason to think highly of either of those people. All we can do is applaud their religion, because without it, they would have accomplished nothing.
Are people only good or bad because of religion? Or are some people good and some people bad regardless of religion?
That, Dee, is what you should be asking.
I have read both sides of the "Hitler was a Christian" argument, and I have concluded that he was not, but it hardly matters.
The fact that some professing Christians do not act in a "Christ-like" manner and do not display "Christ-like" virtues does not nullify their claim that they are Christians. Yahweh himself demanded blood sacrifice and commanded atrocious things to be done in his name. Yahweh's character can hardly be defined as "Christ-like" either.
Christians now believe slavery and the oppression of women to be anti-Christian, and yet Paul adovocated both, especially the subjugation of women. One would hardly claim that Paul was not really a Christian based on this fact.
Paul and James adamantly disagreed on what salvation requires, but both were devout followers of Jesus. How can this be?
The fact that the scriptures contradict themselves continually regarding what exactly Christian character requires and what precedes salvation is the precise reason we see so many types of Christians, so many sects, so many denominations, and so many despicable human beings claiming a belief in Christ.
It is not the fault of said Christians that their actions do not line up with Biblical scripture regarding Christian character. It is the BIBLE'S fault, as it does not make plain what is actually expected of a Christian in the first place and leads many to believe that a profession of faith is all that is required.
Unfortunately, the world can not determine one's sincerity of faith based on their actions, because Pauline Christianity does not require works, but only faith. Christians get to play their "faith card" whenever their actions do not line up with what the world would consider to be required of someone claiming Christian character.
The best advice I can give a Christian, (not that they will take it), is to READ something other than fairy tales! Start with a biology book and work your way up from there. Keep in mind that things are NEVER as they SEEM! One of the biggest surprises I got when I crawled out of my cocoon of ignorance was this: We are being lied to by the Church, the Government, the Schools and the Media! If you want to discover the truth you need to read a LOT! The more you read, the more discerning you become, hence, you can make an intelligent argument when you feel the need. Until then, you should probably stay out of the big league forums because we will pummel you senseless with our knowledge of the facts!
I wonder why a Christian or any other religiously brainwashed person would waste their time posting on this site! Do you people also go to porn sites and fetish sites and express your disappointment with them? Do you fundies also express your disappointment with the Catholics and the Jews, and anyone else who do not agree with you?
Your post expressed, exactly, why I left the faith! Christians and Christianity are based on ignorance and lies.
First, your facts are wrong and you could use a little help in the use of the English language. Second, you leave us no doubt about your ignorance and intolerance by your inability to give a valid and coherent argument with which we can respond! You see, that is the fundamental problem with religion. It is based on lies and the church has always discouraged it's members from reading anything other than fairy tales. So the average Christian goes through life ignorant and ill-informed about all facets of life.
The best advice I can give a Christian, (not that they will take it), is to READ something other than fairy tales! Start with a biology book and work your way up from there. Keep in mind that things are NEVER as they SEEM! One of the biggest surprises I got when I crawled out of my cocoon of ignorance was this: We are being lied to by the Church, the Government, the Schools and the Media! If you want to discover the truth you need to read a LOT! The more you read, the more discerning you become, hence, you can make an intelligent argument when you feel the need. Until then, you should probably stay out of the big league forums because we will pummel you senseless with our knowledge of the facts!
Not only have I read science books, for my profession, but I have read books given to me by Hindus, Jews, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons, Buddhists and agnostics. I may not be as well read as Eris but I am certainly more read than the average Joe. I take nothing on face value but try to understand it from the folks that believe it. Please do not put me into a box as I ask questions. Isn't that what all of you have done to get to the point you now are at?
So, here a few more of my questions. I hope that my English meets with approval. I wish this dang thing had spell check!
1. Hidden gods can easily be shown to be irrational. Then why does someone like Frances Collins, head of the Human Genome project and on track to win the Nobel Prize believe in God? He is smarter than most of us and one cannot fault him for not being well read in the sciences.
2.I agree that I appear to be disqualifying some awful people from being Christians. I still believe that Hitler was not a Catholic in the true sense. But I do believe that Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggert, and Oral Roberts are Christians and I dislike them intensely.Also, I adore Mark Twain and he wasn't a traditional Christian. I shall try to be an equal opportunity basher!
3. Could you give me some good examples of contradictions in the Bible?
4. Could you explain why Paul and James contradict each other?
5. I also agree that religion has caused some to do horrible acts-the Inquistion being one. I also think the Catholic Pope during WWII was a weenie.
6. Religion has caused some people to do good as well as bad. But, there are many people who do good that are not believers in a god. But, does this in itself disqualify a belief in God?
Look forward to the responses.
Dee
Probably the same way Christians deal with Gandhi...
Spoomonkey
You got that right - he was an ATHEIST.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
I am trying to conceive of a universe without a god(s). So...help me. I have talked to some evolutionary physiologists at Duke and they couldn't give me a good answer to the question: "Where did all of the stuff come from." Is the universe eternal-eternaly contracting and expanding? Did it have a start? I understand the concept of many parallel universes but that still does not get me to the point I want to be. You all seem so well versed in your beliefs (or no beliefs if your prefer). How do you concieve of this?
What on earth do you mean by "hidden gods"? Do you mean, as in "invisible"?...due to lack of empirical evidence for their existance? Nonetheless, it seems to me that the term "hidden gods" is redundant. That's like saying "hidden spooks" are irrational. I mean, are there any "UNhidden gods" somewhere? If so, whERE? If, by "irrational", you mean gods such as Zeus, Poseiden, Odin, etc....then "yes", to have a belief in such deities is "irrational", yet, what makes a belief in "Yahweh", or "El", any less "irrational"? After all, the evidence is the same..i.e."none".
Dee: Then why does someone like Frances Collins, head of the Human Genome project and on track to win the Nobel Prize believe in God? He is smarter than most of us and one cannot fault him for not being well read in the sciences.
He very well may be intellectually "smarter" than most, however, as person familiar with the scientific method, he knows he cannot test/falsify "God" in his laboratory, therefore, "Faith" takes over at the point where science leaves off. I'm sure there are "smart" Muslim scientists and "smart" Buddhist scientists, as well. Do you see the problem, now? Believing an intangible self-existing "Supreme Intelligence" sparked the singularity is one thing. Narrowing it down to a specific "Man-god" is quite another.
And speaking of "Noble Prizes", I'm sure there's one available to anyone--scientist, or otherwise-- who can "prove" the existance of ANY "supernatural" being.
Dee: 3. Could you give me some good examples of contradictions in the Bible?
Sure. Do talking snakes, shrubs, and vegetation contradict reality? I say "yes", but feel free to second guess me; feel free to ask any scientist what they think.
Also, an "ALL-loving" being who created and/or allows to exist a specific place to torture people---with fire, no less---seems, well, it seems contradictory. Can you rationalize such a thing? Listening.
Dee: "Where did all of the stuff come from."
Correct me if I'm wrong---you can't concieve of the universe being self-caused or self-existant... yet, you posit a "being" who is either self-caused or self-existant as responsible?
With all due respect, you've answered n-o-t-h-i-n-g with "God". You have an infinite regress to deal with.
Use the FireFox browser. It includes spell check. Or, write your comment in some word processing program and copy and paste it here.
” Could you give me some good examples of contradictions in the Bible?”
CLICK HERE and HERE
” Could you explain why Paul and James contradict each other?”
Because they were in competition. James was the true leader of Christianity after his brother Jesus died. Paul was intent on becoming the leader of the movement, and he won.
Now, if your question was “Could you explain why you say the theology of Paul and James contradict each other?” then that’s a different question.
”Religion has caused some people to do good as well as bad. But, there are many people who do good that are not believers in a god. But, does this in itself disqualify a belief in God.”
No. And the fact that many good and bad people believe weird things doesn’t disqualify belief in Big Foot, UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, or Santa Claus either. The lack of evidence that these things exist is what disqualifies belief in them.
There are many conflicting biblical passages such as Jesus saying the old laws are passed and then later saying the old laws must be upheld or the differing descriptions of his crucification. Most believers shrug these off as simple misinterpretations or points of view. As a non believer I find these gaffs unacceptable when believers attempt to show their religion as true and undeniable. However the really glaring contradictions are the ones that involve the core of religion.
One contradiction of the bible that I find revealing is the story of Adam and Eve. They are in god's garden and are completely innocent. God gives them the command to not eat of the tree of knowledge and of course they do exactly that when eve is tempted by Satan in the guise of a serpent. When god discovers this he is angry curses humanity to mortality (and women to painful birth) and they get tossed out of the garden.
I see multiple problems with this story. The first being that god must discover and ask Adam and Eve why they have become ashamed of their nakedness. Why does god not already know this? Why did he not burst upon the scene as it occured - or better yet, know it was going to happen? These are considerations that simply did not occur to the original story tellers - inconsistencies that one would find in primitive myths.
Another problem is the concept of innocence and sin. The story suggests that A&E are not aware of what sin is or the difference of right or wrong. A parallel would be placing a gun in a children's playroom and telling the children not to play with it. There have actually been studies on this and the results are that curious kids will play with the gun regardless of what they are told. Who is at fault for that then? The parents! So it makes no sense that all of humanity is punished for something that was ultimately the cause of god.
The next contradiction is god knowing his newly formed children are innocent still allows Satan to be in the garden with him. Again, there is the contradiction of blaming A&E for god's incompetence.
Some will argue that god did it because he wanted to test A&E's free will. But I must ask again, how can god be both all-knowing and unknowing? It's contradictory. An all knowing god would know the exact outcome therefor his allowing the tree, satan, and A&E all being together contradicts the idea of free will.
The entire story of Christ is contradictory. God sent himself to save us from himself by sacrificing himself in order to appease himself or the curse that he himself placed on us.
Not only are many scriptures contradictory, but the message that they try and teach are contradictory as well. "Thou shall not kill" yet god commands the destruction of entire races? "Thou shall not steal" yet god demands the destruction of entire societies and orders that his people take the animals, food, and virgins of that society?
Thou shall not bear false witness, yet we have the inquisitions where people where tortured until they readily admitted to things that they were told to admit to, and then promptly killed.
"Love they neighbor" and then told to hate the homosexual or anyone that does not believe the same. The bible even supports the idea of slavery and people today still try and justify that with inane comments like "slavery was different back then". You simply cannot justify it.
Anyway, these are only a few contradictions that popped off the top of my head. But honestly, do you really need more?
As a zoologist, I'm curious why you thought an evolutionary physiologist would or could answer this question? Astronomist or physicist I could see, but the Theory of Evolution and evolutionary biology have nothing to do with this question.
If I were asked that same question, I would have directed you to the Astronomy Dept., even though I am aware of the evidence for the Big Bang (microwave background), but certainly could not demostrate the mathematical basis of these predictions.
Anyway, your implication "if you can't explain then god" is a classic creationist logical fallacy. And, as boomSLANG pointed out, you've just created an infinitely more complex series of questions that can't be answered.
I used the terms "hidden god" in response to another person who used that term to explain something to me. Again, I am trying to look at this through the eyes of those who respond to me. Perhaps in the future I should say which person I am quoting from. I am a relatively new blogger.
Dee
First of all, if you've read the many contradicting scriptures you say you have, what more are you looking for? An infallible and inerrant "Word of God" would not contain such glaring inconsistencies.
From the beginning to the end, the Bible contradicts itself. God wants us to choose him for ourselves but uses threats of torture to insure our worship. 1 Corinthians Chapter 13 is called the "love chapter". It claims that love is not jealous. The Bible elsewhere claims that God is love, yet God himself is recorded as calling himself a jealous God.
One of the commandments demands we do not commit adultery, but he continually makes allowance for polygamy throughout the Old Testament and approves of cconcubines. The only reason David is punished at all is because Bathsheba was another man's wife (property). David was already married to Abigail and God never takes issue with this.
The Bible reports that God stopped the sun in the sky so that the Israelites would succeed in battle, but we know now that the sun does not move. If the Bible were inerrant, surely God would have "inspired", as he is so often claimed to do, the Old Testament writers, and He would have cleared up this embarrassing little mistake long before the appearance of the printing press.
There are MANY contradicting accounts in the life of Jesus told by the gospel writers whether it be the last words of Jesus, his geneology, who was present at his tomb and who exactly found it empty, etc.
There are two different accounts of what exactly happened to Judas after he betrayed Jesus and just how he died.
There are two different accounts as to whether or not the men present with Paul saw or heard what he did.
Paul claims that salvation comes through faith and NOT WORKS lest any man should boast, but James claims that faith without works is DEAD. The book of John claims that anyone born of God DOES NOT SIN, but Paul continually complains about his sin nature and his inability to carry out the commandments of God.
Jesus tells different people that different things are required of them to inherit the "Kingdom of Heaven".
In the OT, Yahweh commands David to take a census, but then punishes him for doing just that.
One of the commandments is "Thou shall not kill", but the Hebrew God is continually reported to DEMAND the Israelites to do just that.
There are two different Creation accounts.
Jehovah is claimed to HATE human sacrifice but allows Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter without punishment.
God tells Adam and Eve that the punishment for their sin would be DEATH, NOT Hell. We do not see the concept of Hell introduced until, I believe, the Chapter of Isaiah. The early Hebrews DID NOT believe or preach the concept of eternal life. They believed and hoped in the resurrection of the dead, but there was no such belief in eternal punishment. The Hebrews were greatly influenced by the Summerian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Zoarastrian beliefs who perpetuated such myths. If you read through the OT, especially Ecclesiastes and Psalms, you will find that David and Solomon both believed that when we die, we die. The believed that the dead were aware of NOTHING.
I have given you quite a few to chew on, but I'm sure you have already been introduced to many of these contradictions. Is there anything else I can do for you?
I'm quite confused with just where you stand on the Jesus/God/Christianity issue. AT times you seem sympathetic and at times you seem disgusted with it. Perhaps I have missed something.
I'm not going to address any of the specific questions you've asked, because I think there is something much more fundamental that should be addressed first. It seems to me that you are asking questions of the form "How do you explain X if there is no god?", with the implication (I presume) that we must have either answered all such questions (at least to our own satisfaction), or that it should bother us if we have not. Is that a fair statement?
If that is so, then please allow me to correct you on that point before we move on. I, for one, feel no need to answer everything. There are millions of question that science cannot fully answer at present, and there are many that may never be answered. That in itself does not lend any credibility whatsoever to the existence of an invisible conscious entity that is behind it all. To not know the answer is to simply NOT KNOW; this does not translate into some other kind of "knowledge"--e.g. knowledge of the supernatural.
To those who believe that myriad unanswered questions somehow imply a supernatural creator, I say you have it quite backwards. One should not adopt a belief out of ignorance (e.g. "I can't think of any other explanation!") but based on reason and evidence ("my beliefs match the available data and are falsifiable"). Moreover, whether or not an explanation is intuitively satisfying to you is not a good criterion for accepting it or not. Much in science is rather dramatically counterintuitive (specifically in quantum theory). Nature is far stranger than our naive intuition tells us, as our innate reasoning has been shaped by eons of interaction at the "middle" scales of size, speed, temperature, velocity, gravitation, pressure, etc. At extremes, science has demonstrated that nature behaves quite differently.
I won't ramble on about this at the moment. Suffice it to say that 1) I am quite content tot say "I don't know" when that is the case, and 2) saying "God did it" is not an explanation at all, as it provides nothing that one would expect from a legitimate explanation, such as the ability to better understand or predict the world around us.
Are we helping "you", or do you believe you are "helping" us?
Dee: "I have talked to some evolutionary physiologists at Duke and they couldn't give me a good answer to the question: "Where did all of the stuff come from."
Dee, your question shows a lack of education. Evolutionary physiology is particular to the study of the organic change over time. You question a biologist on cosmology? Do you know the difference between cosmology and evolutionary physiology?
Do you know the difference between cosmology and cosmography? Do you know the relationship between biology and cosmography? Can you provide a calculus to make a working relationship?
Dee, like so many others that have come here, you don't come with an education equal to the task of proffering a cogent question; ironically though, you come with a "patent" answer to all unknown questions. You have no credibility, and have not qualified yourself as someone who is educated enough to engage in the very topics you suggest you have interest in.
Would you ask an infant to proffer an answer to a calculus question Dee, I wouldn't, it's a waste of time, and they don't have the capacity to engage the topic.
Dee: "Is the universe eternal-eternaly contracting and expanding?"
Let's start with your explanation, how many years have you been studying cosmography? If in hours, you can break that down for us.
Dee: "Did it have a start?"
Define "start". Uh, before you attempt this, you will need to understand what "time" is, by all means, discuss.
Dee: "I understand the concept of many parallel universes but that still does not get me to the point I want to be."
Where do you want to be?
Dee: "You all seem so well versed in your beliefs (or no beliefs if your prefer). How do you concieve of this?
I conceive as I please, it is "you" that appears to have a need to reach some point, in order to understand something.
Dee, how do you validate information given to you by others? I mean, if we are going to talk about questions, that you can't properly form, how is it that you would ever know if an answer were right or wrong?
Moreover, why would anyone invest their time in you, if you haven't invested time in yourself? It's no one's responsibility on this site, to "educate" you; that is your responsibility. Why don't you just present what you believe, and see if it holds water, or is that asking too much? If you can't forumlate any belief at all, then obviously, you have no foundation by which to judge anyone elses' information.
You asked how one can conceieve of the universe in their non-belief. In other words, I have to assume that you're asking what kind of answers we have for the big questions like, "Where did the universe come from?" Well, here's my answer: I don't know. I don't think anypne really does. We have mounds of evidence for natural beginnings. One of the arguments Christians make about God in relation to the First Cause philosophy is that God just is. In other words, Christians argue that all things must have a cause (no painting without a painter), EXCEPT for God. God just is. Why, then, can the universe not JUST BE? Why is "knowing" (and I use that term loosely) the answer to some of these questions SO important? Christians claim that the mystery of their religion is part of the reason it is so wonderful. Well, the natural universe is full of mystery, too. Atheists, unlike Christians, do not fill the void with lies in order to make themselves feel better about not knowing. We admit we don't know, and then we seek out the answers.
I'd like to add, that since it seems obvious that you are trying to make a plea for the existence of God based on the fact that "all this stuff" exists, it is a moot point. Moot, because even if "all this stuff" points to a creator, it doesn't point to Yahweh as being that creator.
Asking "Where did all this stuff come from" is a great starting point, but how does one end up at "God did it"? And even if they end up there by default, how do they then compound their lunacy with "I guess the god that did it is the Hebrew war god and his half-dead son, Jesus?" Where in the hell (no pun intended) is the correlation, and how does one derive at such a conclusion, simply because they do not have the answers?
It seems to me that Creationists use the "God did it" card only because they do not have the answers they seek.
Why are so many afraid to just admit that they don't know? Is it fear or is it to suffice their ego with the haughty opinion that they have found the answers. It is so much easier to assign it all to a make believe entity than to bear with patience the tedious labor of scientists. When scientists do finally supply us with valid explanations, the religious folk balk at their professional opinions, because to accept them would mean a redefining of their long-cherished belief that they had the answer to begin with, which was that God did it. If a creationist finds a gap, they fill it with God, instead of saying, "well, this is just one more thing we don't know yet."
In my opinion, Creationists' obsession with filling in the gaps with God does not derive from some sincere desire to know the answers. They are not concerned with sin or right and wrong. They are not concerned with any of the issues they think they are. It all boils down to their fear of death, and to accept evolution is to accept that maybe, just maybe, their life will end at death, and THAT is unacceptable to their ego. They just are not able to fathom the idea that they will not go on in some form or another. Death is the greatest unknown of all to the human psyche. Death fills us with fear, because what happens after we die is the one thing we have absolutely no control of. Christians and other religious folk, however, believe that they do. They think they have found the precise formula, i.e. the sinners prayer, a trip to Mecca, a suicide bombing, etc. that will insure a blissful eternity for their "souls". They would rather fear Hell with the hope of Heaven, than to live in complete ignorance of what will happen to them after they die. They will take all of the unpleasantries of religion, the fear, the dogma, the ridiculous fairy tales...They will overlook the contradictions of their faith, the atrocities of thier religion's followers, the despicable commands made by their god...They will sacrifice their own happiness and their own good judgment all in order to satisfy their fear of the unknown.
I don't know why Francis Collins became religious, we do know that his conversion was not the result of scientific investigation (he says he had a vision.) Humans are complex and don't always behave rationally. In any event he is only one man, if prominent scientists were converting every week then we could assume that something was going on.
As far as Hitler not being a true Catholic or true Christian, if you have a way to test whether someone is a "true Catholic" or "true Christian" then I'd be interested to hear it. Typically all one has to do is proclaim their belief and they are in the club. As I understand it the Catholic church did not speak out against him at the time nor was he ever excommunicated.
For a Bible contradiction, is salvation by faith alone, or faith and works? There are verses to support either view.
"As far as Hitler not being a true Catholic or true Christian, if you have a way to test whether someone is a "true Catholic" or "true Christian" then I'd be interested to hear it."
I have always been amused when Christians claim that Hitler (or anyone) could not have been a "true" Christian because he (or they) behaved in such and such a manner. I call this the "Dissociative Argument", whereby they attempt to distance themselves from negativity by claimng that they worship the "true way". Of course they all make this claim and all can furnish "proof" for their position by cherry picking the bible. They usually start off this argument by saying something like "You can't judge all Christians because of a few bad ones!" These, of course, are the same people that lump us (atheists) into an immoral group of uncaring, unethical, overly prideful and humility lacking savages. (Why do they consider humility to be a desirable trait, anyway?)
Given that the Catholic church had official doctrine, into the 20th century, concerning the negative desired treatment and disposition of the Jewish people, and that Hitler grew up during that time and would have been exposed to this church doctrine and attitude during his formulative years, it is not really a stretch to theorize that he beleived it. People today beleive it, firmly. A lot of people in the Arab nations feel that Hilter was a hero who just did not go far enough. Other historical figures, including those of the Christian faith, have committed atrocities on a grand scale and were probobly not mentally unbalanced. Wholesale slaughter of innocent people does not by definition take a sick mind, just a firm conviction that what you are doing is correct or "righteous".
I would also point out that while there is mountains of historical instances where people are put to death, by the thousands, in the name of religion, be it Christianity, Islamic, Quetzacotal and many others, there is not one recorded instance of a person being killed in the name of atheism.
"As far as Hitler not being a true Catholic or true Christian, if you have a way to test whether someone is a "true Catholic" or "true Christian" then I'd be interested to hear it."
I have always been amused when Christians claim that Hitler (or anyone) could not have been a "true" Christian because he (or they) behaved in such and such a manner. I call this the "Disassociative Argument", whereby they attempt to distance themselves from negativity by claimng that they worship the "true way". Of course they all make this claim and all can furnish "proof" for their position by cherry picking the bible. They usually start off this argument by saying something like "You can't judge all Christians because of a few bad ones!" These, of course, are the same people that lump us (atheists) into an immoral group of uncaring, unethical, overly prideful and humility lacking savages. (Why do they consider humility to be a desirable trait, anyway?)
Given that the Catholic church had official doctrine, into the 20th century, concerning the negative desired treatment and disposition of the Jewish people, and that Hitler grew up during that time and would have been exposed to this church doctrine and attitude during his formulative years, it is not really a stretch to theorize that he believed it. People today beleive it, firmly. A lot of people in the Arab nations feel that Hilter was a hero who just did not go far enough. Other historical figures, including those of the Christian faith, have committed atrocities on a grand scale and were probobly not mentally unbalanced. Wholesale slaughter of innocent people does not by definition take a sick mind, just a firm conviction that what you