1. If you find yourself thinking about a loving God, divert that thought into the terrible behaviour of the Church.
Follow this logic: Christians do bad things- Crusades, Inquisition, paedophile priests, voting for George W Bush- therefore Christianity itself is distasteful. This is easier to feel than think, so try to approach it at an emotional rather than an intellectual level.
2. You may find yourself thinking about the bad things atheists have done- French Terror, Soviet gulags, Cambodian Killing Fields etc. Somehow this won’t put you off atheism. Again, feel rather than think your way over this logic gap.
3. You may wonder at the good things Christians have done- building schools, orphanages and hospitals, feeding the poor, abolishing slavery etc. Well, they say it themselves: their good deeds won’t get them into heaven; so don’t sweat. Credit the Church with nothing. Blame the Church for everything.
4. Be obstinate in referring to faith as a crutch. If Christians point out that at times crutches come in quite handy, you’ve got them where you want them. Faith is for the weak. You don’t need it, because you’re perfect -or at least can pretend to be.
5: Repeat to yourself, while brushing your teeth if you like, that God is uncaring. He is angry with you. He is nasty. When you wonder, ‘Why does God allow people to suffer?’, brood irritably on the suffering not the allowing.
We all from time to time find thoughts breaking in to our consciousness of God’s daddish grace and mercy; sending sun and rain on his enemies and friends alike; the tender words of Jesus on the cross; the counter-intuitive enigma of the gospel message. When these troubling images intrude, you must up the ante. Call God a childish autocratic myth or a callous arachnoid corpse. Say it: sky-pixie.
6. Insist that the relationship between faith and reason is a conflict. Focus solely on the anti-scientific factions within religion. Close your eyes to religious scientists like Francis Collins, Michael Faraday or James Clerk Maxwell. Do not let the possibility of the synthesis of religion and science enter your mind.
That was tips 1-6. No.s 7-12 coming up…
7. Tell yourself that becoming a Christian will mean you have to swing to the right wing. Converting is a fundamentally party-political decision, rather than being about you and Jesus. All Christians are conservative nincompoops.
8. The Bible: slag it off, ridicule it, form a strong opinion about it. But whatever you do, avoid reading and getting to grips with it if you can possibly help it. Some of the most powerful stories ever told about love and forgiveness are in there, waiting to ensnare you.
9. Church: oh, boy. Forget about all those fun-looking, alive, interesting sorts of churches. Remember: going to church will be boring, awkward, perplexing and guilt-inducing. Don’t go there. Your Christian friend comes back from meetings buzzing with joy? Try to put that out of your mind, or at least pass it off as merely psychological.
10. No-one wants to associate with nerdy maladjusted losers. Your mantra will be: Christians are not cool. ‘What, Beyonce?’ the dorky believers might respond. ‘Jay-Z? Kaká? Johnny Cash?’ In this scenario, just hum back: ‘We’re all going on a summer holiday…’
11. You need to be prepared for waking up in the night wondering where your sense of right and wrong come from in an ultimately meaningless universe. Simple: you decide your own right and wrong, your own purpose and meaning. Just hope there’s no-one around to point out the ultimate futility of that decision itself in a universe without God.
12. If all else fails, there’s always one glorious cop-out. ‘That’s true for you, but not for me.’ Aah, like a Get Out of Jail Free card, isn’t it? Perched cat-like on the fence of lazy agnosticism, no-one can touch you.
When it suits you, you can always invoke the relativist doctrine that there’s no absolute moral truth, or reality. True, it will undermine your insistent criticisms of a moment ago. But that doesn’t matter. You’ve made a little box, and squeezed God right into it.
Hi, I'm Tom and this is my blog, about things that interest me.
Prunus dulcis 
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 4, 2010 at 6:46 pm
NotAScientist
“therefore Christianity itself is distasteful. ”
Therefore, unless Christianity is true, there is no good reason to follow it over other world views that lead to just as good if not better behavior.
“Somehow this won’t put you off atheism.”
Because atheism isn’t a worldview. Any more than theism is. All those groups also didn’t believe in leprechauns. That lack of belief in little Irish beings didn’t make them do the horrible things they did.
“Credit the Church with nothing. Blame the Church for everything.”
Straw man argument.
“You don’t need it, because you’re perfect -or at least can pretend to be.”
Straw man argument.
” Repeat to yourself, while brushing your teeth if you like, that God is uncaring. He is angry with you. He is nasty”
Doesn’t even make sense. I don’t believe a god exists. I spend no particular time considering the attributes of something I don’t think exists. Unless it’s a particularly interesting fictional character.
“Close your eyes to religious scientists like Francis Collins, Michael Faraday or James Clerk Maxwell.”
No one need close their eyes to them. They are good scientists who are also religious. So? They cease being scientific when they are talking about their religions. When they are actually performing science, they are being rational and scientific. Good for them. I disagree with their religious opinions, but as long as it doesn’t influence their scientific work, I couldn’t care less.
Smart people can be mistaken. Smart people are not perfect or infallible.
“Tell yourself that becoming a Christian will mean you have to swing to the right wing.”
Again, a straw man. Plenty of liberal Christians make up the left wing. And we know that.
“avoid reading and getting to grips with it if you can possibly help it. ”
Not only a straw man, but pretty ridiculous if the recent ‘religious knowledge’ study is any indication. Reading the Bible was one of the things that pushed me away from religion.
“Your Christian friend comes back from meetings buzzing with joy?”
And my other friends come back from Baskin Robbins buzzing with joy. So what? Just because something makes people happy in no way makes it true. Or good for you.
“Just hope there’s no-one around to point out the ultimate futility of that decision itself in a universe without God.”
So what?
Yes, humans, based on observations, instinct, tradition and interaction with others decide what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’. You may not like it, but nobody is asking you to.
“‘That’s true for you, but not for me.’”
Except that truth actually means something.
Have you ever actually met any atheists? Or are you just imagining the ones you are writing this about?
Meet some. It might do you a world of good, whether you stay Christian or not.
October 6, 2010 at 5:42 am
prunusdulcis
NotAScientist, thank you for your in-depth response, I’m glad we can engage in the debate together in a healthy way!
I’ve met a lot of atheists, yes, and am always discussing world views with them. I’ve had atheist family, friends, housemates, classmates, professors and colleagues. Several of the people I’m closest to are atheists. I live in an overwhelmingly atheist country. I’m always meeting atheists.
The list is my response to actual things atheists have said to me, or assumptions, opinions and prejudices that I’ve personally perceived in people as we’ve talked. So it’s not just my imagination.
Actually I’ve found dialogue with atheists about their reasons for disbelief bolsters my trust in god and assures me of the solidity of the basis of belief.
Several of my tips you dismiss as not applying to you. They may not apply to you personally. If they don’t, great. But I’m addressing issues that some people have that stop them coming to know their maker personally as their spiritual dad.
A couple of my tips you say are straw men. I didn’t set them up; I heard them in conversations so am responding to them.
I agree they are poor arguments! I was ironically voicing objections I’ve come across. They are indeed vacuous, illogical or lazy arguments. Yet I find people all over the place thinking, consciously or subconsciously, along these lines.
E.g. if someone exclusively talks about the sins of the Church, but never its good points, they are effectively living out the principle of Tip 3, even if they wouldn’t mentally assent to it.
I’m trying to challenge people to reject such objections, hence the provocative tone. I’m not setting up straw men but satirising fallacious arguments that I’ve experienced.
My ‘tips’ are a list of strategies that different people use to push away god in their lives. I suppose we all at some point have used different strategies to put up barriers between us and god, to dismiss or ignore him or to block god out.
You’ve said which ones you don’t use. Are there any on my list that you do use? Or are there any others that you’ve found yourself using?
The ‘Don’t Believe in Leprechauns’ idea: OK, the controllers of the Soviet gulags didn’t believe in leprechauns, and their non-belief in leprechauns didn’t make them behave badly.
But how is that the same as non-belief in god? What is it about belief in leprechauns that would stop someone sinning?
The difference is that following god (i.e. living out his way of life as set down in the New Testament -something more than mere belief) does stop you sinning, and produces the out-workings of “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control”.
Further, the lack of belief in a supreme moral law-giver, as a key component in people’s world views, has indeed been a strong contributing factor, and even a motivating factor, in many injustices and barbarities, big and small.
People have done bad things, not co-incidentally to their atheism, but in the zeal of their atheism. Just as Christians have.
I’m not tarring all atheists with this brush, but pointing out how easy it is to get distracted from god’s goodness and yet not be put off atheism by the deeds of atheists who have similar failings that we condemn in Christians.
On Francis Collins and his ilk: “They cease being scientific when they are talking about their religions.”
True, but unproblematic. The scientific outlook is one tool of many to understand the world.
We naturally cease being scientific when we are talking about art, literature, history, music, philosophy or romance. You can use science to analyse those things, but another tool is better. Science is a screwdriver; essential in certain situations; unnecessary in another.
Since science is the study of nature, its remit is the material. Although Christianity cares about the material, its primary focus is outside of nature; it is super-natural. God is immaterial; outside the scope of science. You need to pick the right tool for the job.
I’m glad you say truth means something. I agree. There’s no such thing as ‘True for you, not for me’. Its appeal comes from not having to labour towards a discovery of the truth, which involves disagreement which is uncomfortable.
Jesus said, ‘I am the way, the truth and the life. No-one can come to the Father except through me.’ What sort of person says something like that?
I’m curious to know what is was about reading the Bible that pushed you away from religion. Was it a particular part of the Bible? How did you go about reading the Bible- where did you start, did you find out how it all fits together, did you seek explanation?
What do you think is the core message of the Bible?
Thanks for your reply and thinking through what I blogged about. Best wishes.
October 6, 2010 at 1:42 pm
NotAScientist
“The list is my response to actual things atheists have said to me, or assumptions, opinions and prejudices that I’ve personally perceived in people as we’ve talked. So it’s not just my imagination.”
Perhaps not. But the way you have worded it implies all atheists, which is what turns a great deal of what you say into sweeping generalizations and straw-men fallacies. Be specific with your claims and I’ll have no problem.
“E.g. if someone exclusively talks about the sins of the Church, but never its good points, they are effectively living out the principle of Tip 3, even if they wouldn’t mentally assent to it.”
Why should one talk about the good things the Church does? They don’t take away the bad things. If a church or organization helps the poor, feeds the needy, builds houses for the homeless, etc, that’s wonderful! But if it also protects members of the organization who are involved in crimes (for example), then they should be criticized. No amount of good actions will make the bad actions suddenly ‘okay’.
“Are there any on my list that you do use? Or are there any others that you’ve found yourself using?”
No. But then, I don’t accept the claim that I am ‘pushing away’ a god, so that’s not surprising. I simply do not believe any god or gods exist. There’s no pushing away necessary. Anything else I do or say on the matter has to do with addressing the problems I see people causing, sometimes in the name of their gods or religions.
“What is it about belief in leprechauns that would stop someone sinning?”
What is it about the belief in a god that would stop someone sinning? Many versions of Christianity and other similar religions preach that sinning is inevitable, which was, if I remember correctly, the whole point of Jesus. In practice, those who claim to be Christians are just as likely to ‘sin’ or commit crimes as the rest of us. And many use the excuse that, as long as they go to confession or take similar steps and are generally sorry, sinning doesn’t matter in the long run.
“The difference is that following god (i.e. living out his way of life as set down in the New Testament -something more than mere belief) does stop you sinning,”
As I said, the statistics disagree with you.
“Further, the lack of belief in a supreme moral law-giver”
I disagree.
I think the belief that harming others to further your own ends is moral is what has caused most of the problems you and I would agree have happened in history. And people with that belief have been both believers and unbelievers.
“True, but unproblematic. The scientific outlook is one tool of many to understand the world.”
I agree.
But it has demonstrated itself to be the best and most consistent tool to understand the world. The one mostly likely to give correct answers.
“We naturally cease being scientific when we are talking about art, literature, history, music, philosophy or romance.”
I agree again. But in those things, we inevitably are in the realm of opinion, not truth.
“God is immaterial”
Here, once again, we agree. Of course, I would also say that the immaterial is immaterial.
“What sort of person says something like that?”
As C.S. Lewis put is, a liar, a lunatic or a lord. Or a legend or fictional person. (At least in part.)
“I’m curious to know what is was about reading the Bible that pushed you away from religion.”
The same thing that pushed me away from all religions. The unsubstantiated supernatural claims. I require evidence to believe things, the more unlikely the thing the better the evidence has to be to garner my belief. Scripture doesn’t cut it.
“What do you think is the core message of the Bible?”
That would be difficult to judge as it was cobbled together by a number of different authors. At a guess, it would be the core message of most scriptures, which is “This is what the god (or gods) says. Now do it.”
October 8, 2010 at 4:28 am
prunusdulcis
“Why should one talk about the good things the Church does?”
Because a balanced and fair view is important. If someone only characterises the church as bad, it’s easy to dismiss its message -about Jesus. It also equates to negative bias.
Just as in general we should hear good news as well as bad news from the major media, so it’s clear-sighted to recognise the good the Church does.
But I hope you don’t feel I’m trying to talk up the good deeds of the Church in order to gloss over or annul its bad deeds. I’d hate that.
The Church doesn’t need a slick PR campaign. It is what it is. For the most part, it’s made up of normal people trying to live up to the reality of their freedom in Christ.
Because I’m part of the Church, I’m exasperated, angered and grieved when Christians abuse children, act hypocritically, arrogantly or conspiratorially. I hate it when people in the Church commit crimes and others cover it up.
More personally, I sometimes cover up my own failings so my friends don’t see. I’m more open now than I was about my imperfection, because I trust more that I’m not judged by God on my merit but on Jesus’ merit, so it doesn’t matter if people know I sin.
By the forgiveness handed me by Jesus’ death on a cross, God has judged me penalty-free. Out of thankfulness to him I fight to be better inside and out. The motive is not to gain acceptance, which was already freely given by Jesus’ sacrifice.
When you say no amount of good actions will make bad actions ok, that idea is close to the reason why I can’t believe in any kind of merit-earning belief system but trust in Jesus for my justification.
Yes, sin is there in everyone. “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. The lifestyle that you criticise of wanting to sin then confessing to get off the hook is completely unbiblical and hurtful to God.
It shows that that person is still a slave to sin. If you want to sin, you’re not free. Real freedom means freedom from the desire to sin. Repentance means turning round and going the other way.
To which statistics do you refer? If it’s the recent study that correlated religiosity and criminality in different US states, let’s not conveniently forget correlation doesn’t equal causation.
The reason I said ‘following god’ rather than ‘believing in god’ is because there’s a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. See in the Bible, James 2:19 and context; “even the demons believe…”
You disagree that a lack of belief in an overarching moral law-giver has ever been a factor in people doing bad things?
Science has been an amazing tool for understanding the world. Yes, reliable and flexible. Science has been one of the greatest projects humans have embarked on.
But non-scientific tools do not all take you into the realm of opinion. There are other tools for finding truth. In a courtroom, different kinds of evidence are presented.
Scientific (testable, repeatable) evidence is one. Legal-historical evidence is another. You don’t scientifically prove a past event occurred. You turn to historical tools. And using them you can establish the truth beyond all reasonable doubt.
You don’t use scientific evidence to ascertain a person’s will. You use legal evidence. Eye witness testimony is also used.
These other categories of evidence, besides scientific, are used to determine truth. They can be used too to determine the truth about Jesus.
Good pun on ‘immaterial’. But what do you think about my point about the supernatural being outside the remit of science, the study of nature?
It’s hugely worthwhile looking into who Jesus is. It’s hard to sustain the idea of Jesus being fictional or made into a legend, given the abundance of historical sources we have on him compared to other historical figures, and the closeness in time of extant new testament manuscripts to the events described. Legends don’t form that quickly.
The scriptures, being documents written by real people, are historical documents and if tested by the rigours of historical enquiry, prove amazingly trustworthy.
Lee Strobel is a good place to start.
What sets apart the Christian gospel from unsubstantiated supernatural mumbo jumbo is precisely that it is substantiated. The circumstances surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion, death and resurrection are for me some of the most persuasive evidence that god is real and alive.
The problem isn’t the strength of the evidence. For most people, it’s usually another issue to do with god.
Despite the Bible being cobbled together by at least 40 authors, one way to sum it up is to say we’re less good than the creator wants us to be, and so Jesus has come to redeem us and build a new people for himself.
Another would be that our sin has broken our connection with and knowledge of god, but through jesus he’s bringing people back into personal relationship with him.
hey NotAScientist, do you like the posts in my science section? I mean to add more sometime about biology and space.
October 8, 2010 at 1:02 pm
NotAScientist
These replies are just going to get longer and longer, aren’t they? 🙂
Alright, here we go…
“If it’s the recent study that correlated religiosity and criminality in different US states, let’s not conveniently forget correlation doesn’t equal causation.”
I’m not suggesting that religiosity causes criminality. Only that, clearly, it doesn’t prevent criminality.
“You disagree that a lack of belief in an overarching moral law-giver has ever been a factor in people doing bad things?”
A disagree that it is a major or even a large factor in people doing bad things.
“In a courtroom, different kinds of evidence are presented.”
Which, sadly, is why far too many innocent people go to prison. (Of course, I’d view any number as far too many, to be fair.) And notice that the primary way that we find out that innocent people have been convicted of crimes is the scientific way…DNA evidence.
It goes against everything people feel, but witness testimony is pretty much the worst form of evidence there is. If what you’re looking for is accurate answers, any way.
“But what do you think about my point about the supernatural being outside the remit of science, the study of nature?”
I’ve seen no good reason to believe that anything exists outside what we can discover using science and in nature.
From my point of view, you’re justifying the existence of something you haven’t shown good evidence for by positing the existence of something else you haven’t shown good evidence for.
“It’s hard to sustain the idea of Jesus being fictional or made into a legend, given the abundance of historical sources we have on him compared to other historical figures”
The closest we have to contemporary reports of the existence of Jesus is the gospels, and they were written at least 10 years after he was supposed to have died. That’s barely good enough to confirm the man existed, let alone to serve as even bad evidence for the supernatural claims about him.
“Legends don’t form that quickly.”
Here, I’m sorry, you’re just plain wrong. And I can give you two quick examples off the top of my head.
George Washington. Two classic stories, his famous prayer and him cutting down the cherry tree, are both legends that popped up in the short amount of time since his death.
And an even quicker legend, Houdini. While he was still alive, many believed he had supernatural powers that assisted him to escape in his act. His close personal friend, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, was convinced of it while Houdini was still alive. A legend that is still continued today in some circles and one that sprouted up while the man was alive and denying it.
“What sets apart the Christian gospel from unsubstantiated supernatural mumbo jumbo is precisely that it is substantiated. The circumstances surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion, death and resurrection are for me some of the most persuasive evidence that god is real and alive.”
For you I’m sure it is. Looked at objectively as actual evidence, though, it fails.
October 9, 2010 at 4:10 am
prunusdulcis
“I’m not suggesting that religiosity causes criminality. Only that, clearly, it doesn’t prevent criminality.”
I’m not sure you can even deduce that from the correlation of religiosity and criminality in US states. Because the correlation tells us nothing about the relative polarisation of a society.
I’m not claiming that the more religious people there are, they make the whole society behave better. I’m saying that in the life of the individual, as a person follows god’s path, they sin less.
This is necessarily true because following god is by definition not sinning. At the moment a person sins, he’s momentarily strayed from following god. When she’s actively following god, she’s not being a slave to sin.
I’m not defending religiosity per se, but saying the following of god prevents badness and produces goodness in you. In the bible, James ch 2 is good on this; “faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.”
This is only meaningful in the individual life, not looking across society as a whole.
The reason why a lack of belief in an overarching moral law-giver is a major factor in bad behaviour is because it cuts you off from a big motivation to be good. i believe the moral law is universal and transcendent, so I know I’m inescapably obliged to be good.
furthermore, the spirit of god living inside men & women who accept him in purifies their desires & makes them want to be good & not be bad.
without god, there’s the societal consensus & the co-operative motivation to be good, ie being good is what benefits the group. but this is a weaker motivation because it doesn’t address the root problem that naturally we often want to do bad.
in short, god wants people to be good. if you take god out the picture, you take out a big motivation to be good.
getting back to my original point (Tips 1 & 2), Christians and atheists alike have done wrong (perhaps perverting their doctrines to do so) and yet to look at the narrative in the media & discussion threads, most people let this put them off Christianity yet not be put off atheism, which is inconsistent.
This lean towards atheism & away from god shows we are by nature entrapped in sin and need outside help in being freed to embrace our maker.
It goes without saying scientific evidence is hugely useful and accurate. It’s fashionable to knock eyewitness testimony, but as long as we know its limitations, it can be a powerful corroborative tool.
We forget that we happily rely on eyewitness testimony every day & can’t function without it.
The strength of the new testament is that you have 4 gospel writers in agreement, that it isn’t all merely the work of one chap, that there were crowds of witnesses with one view of Jesus.
And the eyewitness testimony about Jesus is just one string in the bow.
The point about science is we know it’s inherently limited. All tools are. So trying to use science to uncover the supernatural is simply a category error. A screwdriver is fantastic at screwing screws. But don’t try to use it as a flashlight then say you can’t see anything.
Yes, we have manuscripts dating back to within a few years of Jesus’ death. You need to get an historical perspective in order to appreciate how strong that is.
In the history of antiquity, that is unparalleled. Compared to information on any other ancient person or events, the new testament is incredible in abundance, uniformity, completeness.
Historians are confident of knowing details of Alexander’s life or the text of Caesar’s Gallic Wars. Yet the new testament is miles ahead of anything else in reliability. If we know anything of ancient history, we know Jesus is a real historical figure.
OK, I accept your points that legends can form quickly. Good point. But the legends you mention are of a completely different order. I imagine you’re talking about anecdotes that we can comprehensively refute from the body of historical evidence.
The concreteness, uniformity and clarity of the picture of Jesus was recorded very early. In antiquity, it took 100s of years for stories to grow embellishment. We can see that by comparing manuscripts of different ages.
There was no time for tales to be mythologised and then coalesce into a unified account before being written down within the lifetimes of the best friends of Jesus.
On top, 11 of the 12 disciples were executed for saying that Jesus was alive from the dead. People often die for what they believe to be true, but no-one dies -so painfully- for what they know to be false.
They went to their deaths insisting Jesus is alive. Who was threatened with crucifixion for saying Washington cut down a cherry tree -and wouldn’t they have denied it if they were?
Which evidence surrounding Jesus’ resurrection do you find, in your objective view, fails to cut the mustard? Is it the crowds of witnesses who saw him alive again; the enemies who could so simply have produced his corpse; the women who first saw Jesus; the life-or-death stakes for the Roman guards on the tomb; or something else?
October 10, 2010 at 11:31 pm
NotAScientist
“This is necessarily true because following god is by definition not sinning.”
Which is why I tried not to couch what I was saying in terms of sinning and not sinning. Had Abraham gone through with it and slaughtered his son in the Bible story because no angel told him not to, it wouldn’t have been sinning. That wouldn’t have made it right or good. Not in my book. And that’s one of the huge problems I have with religion.
It’s an old quote, but I find it is more often true than not: All things being equal, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things. But to get good people to do bad things, you need religion.
“The reason why a lack of belief in an overarching moral law-giver is a major factor in bad behaviour is because it cuts you off from a big motivation to be good. i believe the moral law is universal and transcendent, so I know I’m inescapably obliged to be good.”
It cuts off some people from what they perceive as a big motivation to be good.
Interestingly, one people leave religion they tend to find plenty of reasons to ‘be good’. Myself included. And I don’t find the desire not to get punished to be a main one.
“ie being good is what benefits the group.”
I am much more selfish and pragmatic than that. “Being good”, in general terms, keeps me alive. It makes it significantly more likely that people will act good towards me, and assist me if someone has acted badly to me.
If you go around with a weapon hitting people, you have just significantly increased your own chances of getting hurt in return. That isn’t necessarily a failure of some sort of moral guide. It’s a failure to understand statistics.
“Christians and atheists alike have done wrong (perhaps perverting their doctrines to do so) and yet to look at the narrative in the media & discussion threads, most people let this put them off Christianity yet not be put off atheism, which is inconsistent.”
The issue here is that Christianity and atheism aren’t in the same category. Christianity is an ideology with all sorts of rules and regulations and beliefs. Atheism is the position on a single belief. It is only that one thing. So, when I tell you that I’m an atheist, I’m actually telling you very little. If me and my Buddhist friend met you at a pub for some drinks, we both could confidently tell you that we were atheists. But beyond that, in relation to our beliefs we would have very little in common.
I’m not put off of atheism even though Stalin was an atheist because I don’t see his atheism as being the reason he did the things he did. Because he was an atheist who also believed that religion should be destroyed, freedoms should be taken away, and killing people to further your own goals was completely justified. I, on the other hand, share his lack of belief in a god but disagree with the rest. Nothing about atheism requires me to agree with any of those other opinions Stalin held.
“We forget that we happily rely on eyewitness testimony every day & can’t function without it.”
I never said it wasn’t evidence. I just said it was the worst form of evidence. And when dealing with completely arbitrary subjects, like the things we experience in our every day life, bad evidence is probably good enough. The bigger the issue, the more incredible the claim, the less useful that horrible form of evidence becomes.
“The strength of the new testament is that you have 4 gospel writers in agreement, that it isn’t all merely the work of one chap, that there were crowds of witnesses with one view of Jesus.”
Again, I don’t find it convincing in the slightest. First of all, Biblical scholars can show us where they copied off each other. They were also all written significantly after the events they are supposed to be depicting. Which doesn’t strike me as terribly convincing.
“A screwdriver is fantastic at screwing screws. But don’t try to use it as a flashlight then say you can’t see anything.”
The difference is that we know, scientifically, the functions of flashlight and screwdrivers and their uses. There is no good reason to even think the supernatural exists except that some people seem to think so. And some people thinking so isn’t a good reason.
“If we know anything of ancient history, we know Jesus is a real historical figure.”
No, we really don’t. We have four people writing about someone who supposedly died decades earlier. We have no contemporary reports of his existence.
And even forgetting that, so what? It doesn’t particularly matter to me whether or not an itinerant preacher named Yeshua existed. What matters is whether or not the claims he made were true.
And as I said, we MAY have enough evidence to confirm he existed. But we don’t have enough evidence to say he performed supernatural feats. The same is true of Caesar. We have plenty of evidence to confirm he existed. We don’t have enough evidence to confirm his claim that he was descended from the goddess Venus.
“I imagine you’re talking about anecdotes that we can comprehensively refute from the body of historical evidence.”
No, I am not. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle claimed that Houdini has supernatural abilities which allowed him to block the abilities of other spirit mediums, as well as to escape from otherwise inescapable bonds. That’s a claim equal to the claims that Jesus could drive out demons. And it isn’t refuted. So? Do you now believe in Houdini’s powers? Why not?
A claim has to be proven by the person or people making the claim. It is not the responsibility of everyone else to refute it. It’s called the burden of proof.
“On top, 11 of the 12 disciples were executed for saying that Jesus was alive from the dead. People often die for what they believe to be true, but no-one dies -so painfully- for what they know to be false.”
I never claimed that his disciples didn’t believe in him. So what? Their belief doesn’t matter any more than Doyle’s belief matters in relation to Houdini.
“Is it the crowds of witnesses who saw him alive again”
You mean the ones who never wrote anything down about it?
“the enemies who could so simply have produced his corpse”
Who would care enough to bother doing that? Again, BURDEN OF PROOF.
And you seem to think that 10 years is just a tiny bit of time. I’m sorry, but it’s not. Ten years is more than long enough to forget the location of a body, have it moved, or for it to have decayed beyond recognition. Besides which, believers are incredibly good at coming up with excuses when presented with evidence refuting their claims. If anyone showed Jesus’ body, I wouldn’t be surprised that his believers would call it a fraud, or the body of someone that looks like him intended to trick them.
Sorry, I’m not impressed by people writing stories decades after the fact about supposedly supernatural events.
October 15, 2010 at 3:43 pm
John
That is insulting to atheists. First, an atheist doesn’t have to “maintain” non belief. Why would one maintain a lack of belief? I imagine you are probably a non-astrologist, non-Greek mythologist, non-wiccan, etc…so do you have to spend time maintaining that non faith? The fact is that you are an atheist about all the other hundreds of gods, just not the one (actually 3) you worship.
Not to mention that you insinuate that atheists are immature, emotional, and angry at God. Most atheists are more educated, earn more, and highly compassionate. One recent headliner revealed a study that claimed atheists actually know more about the bible than Christians. The author of that study stated it was because most were formally Christians who studied in depth because of their honest search for truth and were led out of the faith due to education and critical thinking. Here is an interesting quote as well that deals with the outrageous opinion that atheist are apathetic or selfish with no moral compass.
“Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on earth. According to the United Nations Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality.” Sam Harris
I’m not criticizing any faith or non-faith, just saying people who write unsubstantiated “Top 12” reasons that are antagonistic to another group are not helping your Christian cause.
October 15, 2010 at 3:59 pm
John
btw…concerning the authenticity of the resurrection story. Please research Krishna, Mithra, Tammuz, Osiris, or the other 25 or so savior/god cults that predated Jesus.
October 17, 2010 at 1:42 am
Kai
Dear friends, you are going in circles. The historical evidence is irrefutable. Jesus Christ lived, was crucified and rose from the dead. His death and resurrection was prophesied at many places in the Old Testament. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament are telling one coherent story, from the creation of man to the final judgment: the story of God;s desire for a family, His love for man, man’s rebellion against God and God’s work of redemption.
You may quibble about it or not, this is the truth. About science and God, science does give insight into the workings of nature, and this insight points to the Creator. Discoveries in nuclear science, astrophysics, cosmology, earth science, to name just a few, have established the anthrophic principle, showing that the existence of life depends on a highly improbable fine tuning of several physical constants and sequencing of events.
Beyond all of that, everybody can know God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit personally and intimately. They are more real to me than any of my human friends, and yes, I am a quite rational scientist, physicist by training. Atheism just has no evidence going for it, it is simply a lame excuse for people who want to do their own thing.
October 27, 2010 at 9:13 am
Mariusz
Dear Kai, I have been brought up in a Roman-Catholic family, I served for almost ten years as an altar boy, I’ve read the Bible several times. To be honest, I can not find any 100% certain proofs of Jesus’ existence. However the HINTS left in the Bible are enough for me to believe that Jesus had existed. For me personally it is simply a matter of FAITH. The only substantial PROOF that God exist is the science’s incapability for ruling out the God’s nature, we can not state that God did not have create the Universe, since no one knows what caused the BIG BANG. But on the other hand, there are no proofs that God did it, so it all comes back to FAITH. What I am trying to say is, it’s great that you believe in God, and it’s ok for me if someone does not, as long you and the other atheist-person do not want to kill one another because of yours beliefs (or lack of them). I respect everybody not because the bible tels me do so, but because of my own sense of morality and ethics.
“Atheism just has no evidence going for it, it is simply a lame excuse for people who want to do their own thing.”
I find this statement rude and meaningless, which is weird having in mind that it comes from a Christian scientists such as yourself.
First of all, Atheism is not a belief and as such it does not require proofs, on the contrary you need proofs to support beliefs! And second, saying that being atheist is for people who just want to do their own things, shows just your lack of understanding for people that sometimes are more concerned about others that one would expect for Christians to be.
As Ghandi once said: “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”
Regards
October 28, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Kai
Dear Mariusz,
I apologize for the word “lame.” I still believe that atheism is an excuse. It’s roots are not in reason, but in a life-style decision, a value decision. The rational arguments are window dressings, they are not the real issue.
About the burden of proof, it rests on the atheist as well as on the believer. Atheism is a belief, it does require evidence. It is the statement that “God does not exist,” which is on the same level as the statement that “God does exit.” One is simply the negation of the other, they are both subject to the same rules of discourse.
Now, as far as evidence goes, science does provide substantial evidence for the existence of a creator existing beyond the realm of space and time, and it provides an answer for the question about an ultimate cause.
The atheist position has to be content with self-existing laws of nature, an inexplicable act of creation that caused the universe, extremely unlikely accidents that allowed the existence of life, no explanation for the origin of highly organized information in the DNA, and so on.
It is not a rational philosophical position, it just excludes the most interesting questions from the philosophical discourse because the atheist does not like the implication, the most obvious answer.
I do think that the burden of proof is on the atheist, very much so.
Sincerely
Kai
October 29, 2010 at 12:00 am
escapedmatrix
Again, please refer to my post about non-belief. Atheism is not a belief nor is it anti-god. Atheism is a non-belief. Atheists simply follow evidence and logic to a conclusion. If I were to claim that Pixies created the universe with Pixie dust and they are its divine rulers. They influence us because they are invisible and tiny enough to enter into your eardrum so that they can be heard. You would respond by saying it was ridiculous and that there is absolutely no evidence to support that claim. You would say the burden of proof is on me. Then I would ask you if you could prove they didn’t exist. You would say that was impossible, after all they are invisible, pixie dust can’t be seen nor calculated, and you have never heard a pixie speak to you. Then I state that if you can’t prove they don’t exist, then that just proves they do. Furthermore, because you refuse to admit their existence I categorize that as not believing therefore you now have faith that they don’t exists, just like I have faith that they do. We are now equally logical and both equally lack evidence. And to top it all off I say that your belief is anti-pixie and you simply believe that so that you can live selfishly and trample on those with lesser means.
The reality is that Pixies and their dust are ridiculous. You are not ant-pixie, but just anti-absurd. Well, welcome to atheism. Most atheists are not anti-god, just anti-ridiculous.
I also find it interesting that you speak of irrefutable evidence and you are a scientist. How can you use such strong language when there are so many brilliant people of science who conclude the opposite? Isn’t that unscientific to be married to a theory even when evidence states otherwise? Or at the least may cause doubt?
I personally am agnostic and am always open to honest and authentic discussion. In fact, I am willing to change my mind if the evidence, philosophical and physical, is convincing. So, we are all not mean spirited, belligerent, dogmatic heathens. I’m sure you’re a really kind person, but your language is aggressive and condescending.