Experiment Results
Holy crap! (Get the double entendre?)
I’d say this experiment has been a roaring success. I’ve been staying out of the debate over here because I’ve had my hands full at Eternal Revolution, but I’ve read all of the comments. I’m struck by two things. First, I knew I had a smart audience, but now I think I may have the smartest audience in the atheist blogosphere. Have you seen how tiny that scrollbar handle is on Chad’s post? It’s incredible. You people have written a book in two days. Second, I’m surprised that this didn’t get ugly. I thought we might have a religious rumble on our hands, but (mostly) everyone has been able to conduct a civil debate.
Based on these results, I find myself seriously considering pursuing LBBP’s idea of a theist/atheist blog carnival. (That’s assuming he’s still willing to let me steal his concept.) We’ve stumbled onto a remarkable batch of Christians at Eternal Revolution, and I’m not sure there are many Christian sites that would want to participate in this kind of thing, but I think it’s worth a shot. I think the best approach might be to predetermine a theme for each carnival (like predestination or the problem of evil) and then include posts on that topic. The down side is that most of the posts would probably have to be written expressly for the carnival. I know the atheist side could support this, but I’m not sure how to promote it to the theists. Maybe Chad would be willing to co-sponsor this endeavor. I imagine that the hosting would trade off between theist and atheist blogs. I don’t think I want to limit it to Christianity, but I imagine most of the theist hosts would end up being Christians.
Anyway, I’d like to hear your ideas on this. I’d also like to know if LBBP minds me doing this and if Chad wants to participate. Any postmortem analysis of the exchange we’ve been doing is also welcome in the comments on this post.
~I AM~
September 7th, 2005 at at 1:45 pm
Agreed, great dialogue! I admit I thought this thing would deteriorate into name calling and/or bomb throwing at some point. It’s quite a testament to the sophistication of the readers and contributors that they were nearly all tolerant enough to listen during this whole thing w/o blowing up.
I would absolutely want to participate in a carnival between atheists and theists, and I would try to rally as many other Christian bloggers as I could. It seems to me that a central theme would work best. I’m thinking the best way to find a good ‘theme’ for it would be to go through these comment threads to see what really stands out as a reoccurring topic of debate that is worthy of further exploration.
September 7th, 2005 at at 2:29 pm
Great idea, I Am! And good plan for the ‘themes’, Chad.
I would very much love to see this - get some kind of a long-term dialogue open and open up the eyes and ideas of many people be they theists or atheists.
September 7th, 2005 at at 2:38 pm
That’s awesome, I look forward to it. This might be as big as the COTG soon.
I volunteer to host at some point. . .
September 7th, 2005 at at 3:19 pm
Yes, fun was had by all. The atheists opened a can of whoopass, and the theists shook their heads in dismay… and then in triumph, for they know that we’re all gonna burn in hell for eternity for our original sins anyway.
A theist/atheist carnival would be another verbal bloodbath. If only there was a way to level the playing field; nonsense and superstition just can’t compete against logic and reason. Perhaps we should focus on religions other than xianity. Maybe include some ancient polytheistic religions? Its just no fun with only one (three) god. Maybe we cam bring in the pastafarians or the IPU worshippers. The more the merrier.
September 7th, 2005 at at 4:54 pm
I AM, I have no objection. Carry on as you see fit. Your writing/site certainly has more credentials in this arena than I do. I would also like to participate/host as appropriate.
I was playing with the idea and started thinking about titles etc. I created a couple header banners if your interested. (http://www.lbbp.net/skepticrant/atheist_theist.htm) A Spy vs. Spy motif could be fun. I think the approach needs to involve humor. Too serious and I it could degenerate into flame wars.
I also really like the idea of opening it up to other religions. Some of the fringe groups could add allot of humor.
September 7th, 2005 at at 4:56 pm
FSMism isn’t fringe, it’s the one true religion! How dare you insult His Holy Noodlness this way!
September 7th, 2005 at at 5:03 pm
LBBP:
Beautiful work on the graphics. I had a similar motif in mind. My only concern is the representation of atheism with hellfire. I feel like it perpetuates the idea that we’re Satanists. I think black and white could convey the same idea without the negative connotations.
I’ve been kicking around titles in my head and I can’t come up with anything catchy. “AvT Carnival” is pretty boring. If anyone has ideas, please share.
September 7th, 2005 at at 5:40 pm
[b]Topics I’d be interesting in reading about:[/b]
Scriptural support for the Trinity
Interpretation (If it means something different to each of us, isn’t it all relative?)
Where is the “sacrifice” if Jesus came back from the dead?
Contradictions
Theistic Evolution
Hell
The Problem of Evil
Pascal’s Wager (New & improved: Aren’t christians worried that they may have picked the wrong god to believe in? Safest bet is no bet at all - Just Say NO! to religion. You could burn in somebody’s hell for being wrong.)
Faith vs. Works (How do you obtain salvation?)
Book discussions: We could read a book, and go through it chapter-by-chapter, with each group offering comments along the way
September 7th, 2005 at at 5:47 pm
Yes it has been a huge success 61 comments and counting! Its pretty civil too. Looking back at the comments, I think that the most confrontational or aggressive comments poster was myself. Whoops! I wasnt trying to come off like an asshole or bully so I apologize if anyone thought my posts were too confrontational. I get into these kindsof debates the way a hooligan gets into soccer matches LOL
For atheist vs theist carnival names, why not something comedic like:
Ultimate Fighting Carnival: Freethinkers vs. Faith-havers
Clash of the Carnivals: Faithful vs. Faithless
Faith-Based Carnival Initiative: Godly vs. Godless
Obviously, you could mix and match all those phrases up to come up with something that you think sounds catchy. I kinda like the second one myself
September 7th, 2005 at at 6:16 pm
…Carnival of the Intelligently Designed?
September 7th, 2005 at at 6:40 pm
First, I’d like to say I can’t think of a reason why this shouldn’t be tried. We have nothing to lose and much to gain. That being said, at some point the debate will crumble. Maybe not always, but there will be occasions. I think the basic premise can survive those occasions though. We have . At the very least, it will sharpen our debating skills. I would like to call it “The Eternal Debate”. It’s a nice simple pun that conveys what it is about. I think it should be a home field advantage kinda thing. If an atheist site hosts it, then the theists get to call the topic. If theists host it, then atheists decide the topic. Or some variation like that.
September 7th, 2005 at at 7:17 pm
I like The Eternal Debate, but I have an idea, too :).
How about GoD? Meaning “great ontological debate”.
Just a thought… I have another, but I like it so much I’m afraid to share it. Heh.
September 7th, 2005 at at 7:39 pm
Good job all around I really like the way this came together. Do the carnival. The more people realize that we are non believers and really do not believe in any of it the better we will be. Most religious people believe or associate atheists with satan worship or withcraft. It’s just plain nutty. JIM
September 7th, 2005 at at 8:18 pm
The Eternal Debate, that’s a good one. Has a nice sound to it.
The idea for it to be GoD is a good one, but that name is to clunky.
I can’t think of a word that starts with “o” but, as for the G and D, how about Godless and Devoted?
So something like “The Eternal Debate: Godless [o word] Devoted
Just an idea. . .
September 7th, 2005 at at 9:14 pm
*hand raised in back corner of room* Damned If You Do or Damned If You Don’t?
September 7th, 2005 at at 9:29 pm
EUREKA!
Addict_no_more just emailed me her better idea, and that’s the one.
GOD or NOT
It’s a play on HOT or NOT. She didn’t want to put it out here because the fabulous domain name godornot.com was available, and she didn’t want anyone to snap it up. I’ve just registered it, and I’ll have a site up there within a week or two.
Thanks to everyone who made suggestions.
boywonder:
The Eternal Debate was my second choice, FYI.
The problem with your idea on topic selection is figuring out which person from the other side should pick the next topic. I think that maybe each host should pick the topic for the next carnival. I would have to approve topic choices to make sure they’re relevant, phrased well, and not redundant.
LBBP:
I think it’s only fair to let you host the first one, since it was your idea. Email me about what topic you want to do. Also, if you want to take a crack at some graphics for this title, feel free. I haven’t done anything yet.
September 7th, 2005 at at 10:11 pm
If the theists are correct, it won’t be much of an Eternal Debate if we (atheists) aren’t around to debate with. That is, unless we can log onto some afterlife network to chat with them from hell.
Then again, if we’re correct, it’s not very Eternal, now is it?
But I do see that it is a debate about issues of eternity, and one that has been, and will be, ongoing since the first humans “appeared” until we eventually “disappear” - which for all intent and purpose is eternity.
Now onto the oh-so pressing issue of ~I Am~’s handle. Some may have noticed it has been the issue of some conversation. I’ve noticed that it’s rather difficult to address him simply and quickly and without some confusion (his name IS a statement afterall). Do I call him “I”…maybe “Am.” Nah, I’mma call you Yam. OK? Not implying you’re sweet, or a vegetable (or tuber), it’s just that I have some strange need to do so.
September 7th, 2005 at at 10:14 pm
It would appear I need to refresh my browser window more frequently. That or manage to multitask while both on the phone and trying to comment.
God or Not is a good choice there, Yam.
September 7th, 2005 at at 10:18 pm
It is a pain to refer to me. It requires ridiculous tricks of punctuation and capitalization. I’ve actually been waiting to see if a standard would emerge, but I keep seeing new approaches.
However, I hate yams. How about IM? It’s pronounced the same way, and it’s not a sentence.
September 7th, 2005 at at 10:41 pm
Dammit, I really like Yam (and yams). But if you wish for IM, then so be it. Mayeb. Far be it from me to DUB anybody anything, but IM makes me think of Instant Messaging you.
Anyhow, this sounds wonderful, and I truly hope it comes to fruition, and lasts beyond a one time event/attempt.
It may be hard to gather other representatives of theists beyond xians. I do have some Muslim friends, and I will let them know there is a forum brewing to continue our own debates. I see more potential in debates between the theists though, with them only agreeing that we are lost and doomed, and duking it out over the usual. On that note I see intra-beef all around - we’re well aware of the differences amongst both theists and atheists. The obvious solution is strict adherence to the Carnival rules. I’m now rambling on.
Oh well, as long as it isn’t one long Evilution vs Cretinism replay.
September 7th, 2005 at at 10:47 pm
I’m just catching up here, and finally got around to reading your post over at Chad’s, I Am, er, IM. It was great. Wow! And so were all the subsequent godless comments from you other guys.
This may sound funny, but it’s true: while I was reading through all of it I felt the same little tingle of joy I did when I first read Thomas Paine.
Like taking a deep breath of pure oxygen. It was good stuff.
Interesting that there was really more of a debate over here than over there. That was my impression anyway.
September 7th, 2005 at at 10:54 pm
As for the banners…good job LBBP (gotta do somethin’ about that name too). Good blog all around, actually.
Although I see the same reflected on this site’s header and footer, I agree that the imagery used for both do carry long-standing connotations. And they aren’t too good for our side. Far too many think we atheists are evil, sacrilegious, self-absorbed, etc (something I acknowledged with each wince I exhibited while reading the exchanges. We cussed, they didn’t. We’re seen as crass and disrespectful, they are sanctimoniously goody goody.) I don’t want to contribute to that way of thinking. No matter how hard it may be.
Of course the fire could symbolize our passion. And the clouds could indicate where their heads are, but I digress…
Also, isn’t yam slang? As in “He’s such a yam?” I do know it’s a god in Persian Mythology (Levantine god of the untamed sea).
September 7th, 2005 at at 11:00 pm
FINE! Call me a yam. Whatever. I’m not eating the pie, though.
The design of this site doesn’t represent theism and atheism. It represents heaven and hell. What’s in the middle is the truth, in black and white.
September 7th, 2005 at at 11:17 pm
As a consolation prize, could we use the “The Eternal Debate” slogan as the phrase under the God or Not slogan? You know, like “Helping mankind overcome religion” under The Evangelical Atheist?
September 7th, 2005 at at 11:22 pm
God or Not, sounds good to me.
Thanks for the honor of the first host. I look forward to it. I will start thinking about topics and see if I can think of any thematic graphics.
As DUB says on the “oh-so pressing issue” of addressing “I AM”, I have to admit I kind of like “Yam” also. The only problem with IM is that it is also the acronym for “Instant Messaging”. On the other hand maybe that’s not a bad thing.
September 8th, 2005 at at 12:01 am
*Blush*
I’ve spent way too much time at Hot or Not. I’ve submitted waaay too many pictures, too. I know, I know. I need a life.
Wow, cool. I thought it sounded catchy… easy to remember, and straight to the point.
I submitted it as God or Not: A Theistic Debate. In my lil brain, the A hangs off the Theistic, so it’s sort of a play on words, I suppose. I’m not a graphics person, really… or I’d design it! Not sure if that part was accepted, too… it was just a thought, and I certainly don’t want to be greedy ;)!
Thanks, I AM.
September 8th, 2005 at at 12:03 am
PS. Since it came up, LBBP - what does that stand for??? I’ve been dying to know!
September 8th, 2005 at at 1:30 am
Well, if you look at my work blog at lbbp.net (not so much a blog as a portfolio) you will see that I work in the entertainment technology field as a designer. I currently work for a Houston production company, but when I work freelance I use the DBA Little Black Box Productions or LBBP. I maintain the URL in case I ever end up working on my own again.
September 8th, 2005 at at 3:05 am
“The Eternal Debate” slogan
I don’t know. Maybe we should be more optimistic and set of goal of having everyone convinced within, say, five years.
September 8th, 2005 at at 5:04 pm
I had heard of Hot or Not, but never really been to the site. Now that I have, I think a straight forward parody could be a very effective approach to the look of the carnival. The info site could have its own version of the voting system “GOD or NOT”. This could be a really fun way to draw attention to the carnival.
I made a quick mockup at:
http://www.lbbp.net/skepticrant/godornot.htm
September 8th, 2005 at at 7:39 pm
I’m one of the contributors at Eternal Revolution… and I say, bring on the Carnival! I like the idea of whoever hosts it lets the guest call the topic. Excellent idea. Who’s first?
And for the Record, Mookie (at the top of this post) says:
“Yes, fun was had by all. The atheists opened a can of whoopass, and the theists shook their heads in dismay… and then in triumph, for they know that we’re all gonna burn in hell for eternity for our original sins anyway”.
Just to be a stickler, I doubt there was much dismay or triumph felt by the Theists. We’re not feeling whooped nor like we’re gonna burn in hell. After all, “saved Christians” don’t usually have to worry ’bout hell. (Hmm. Or DO they?).
And for the record, there are many of us out there with complicated versions of belief systems, based upon what works for us. I’ve gotten myself into a little hot water not too long ago by suggesting the thought “why can’t we be created by God, and then given multiple lives with which to learn many lessons. After all, the soul lives forever…”? (And, in fact, many of us don’t learn our assigned lessons the first 843 times we’re given each one).
It wasn’t a popular thought amongst at least 1/3 of my friends, but I gotta say, the other 2/3 were open to thinking about it or directly agreed it could be a possibility.
Seriously, give us a little credit here for at least thinking through our faith systems. We’re not all raised Christian, and many of us have at least examined all the scientific basis that you are leaning on in many of your arguements in deciding what it is we believe.
When someone shows me the *ACTUAL* missing link, I may rethink my story.
I’m talking about the real, actual, can-be-proven-by-10,000-scientists missing link, not the almost-missing link or the “close-enough” missing links that are just so close that you just have to admit it’s the one…blahblahblah.
Anyway, back to what I was saying… Carnival, anyone?
September 8th, 2005 at at 9:04 pm
Tiffany, The idea of a “missing link” has been completely misinterpreted for quite a while now. There is no true thing as a perfect specimen that is a half one species and half another. At the very least, it is misleading to use the term “missing link” to describe any progressive mutation within a species. There are actually quite an abundant variety of what I think you might consider to be “missing links”. Paleoanthropology, for example, has a fairly complete picture of the physical progression of homo sapiens all the way back to the Australiapithacine Africani (I’m sure I murdered the spelling of that one), which would be the earliest known hominids to date.
September 8th, 2005 at at 11:59 pm
LBBP:
That is REALLY funny. I love it. I just have to figure out how to put all the necessary text into that.
September 9th, 2005 at at 9:06 am
Tiffany Says
When someone shows me the *ACTUAL* missing link, I may rethink my story.
Tiffany, what in god’s name does the missing link have to do with atheism? What does science in general have to do with atheism?
Atheism, like it’s antithesis, theism, are philosophical concepts. They exist independently of science.
Surely you’re not making the rookie mistake of equating the theory of evolution with atheism, are you?
Because your current argument…well…just think about where that could lead…
Essentially, you’re saying you’ll abandon your belief in God, pending scientific discovery “X” (”missing link”, dark matter, Bush competence, etc)
Wow! You’ve totally submitted not to God, but to science! Science now determines whether you can/should believe in God.
Don’t you see how backwards that is?
Think about it.
September 9th, 2005 at at 12:11 pm
RMadison,
To answer your question: I had noticed a lot of falling back on science (and yes, even evolution & missing links, etc) trotted out as proof of the argument against God in recent exchanges. I was merely trying to make a point, using a common topic that has already been brought up by atheists. We’ve been asked to “prove” the existence of our God. I’m merely reversing the request, to prove that there is real evidence of our evolution as the THEORY asserts.
I actually DO believe in science, when it is provable fact. I’m also intrigued by science that is theoretical and watch it with interest to see what will ultimately become fact by irrefutable evidence, over time.
Bottom line is, I’m not a proponent that Science and God are mutually exclusive. From a theist’s perspective, they are very compatible indeed. Science is, after all, an exploration and desire to understand our surroundings, then to use that to try to improve them as well as ourselves, no? If our surroundings and our species existed before we started in with the beakers and microscopes, then Science can still exist if there is a God who created us (which I believe there is, and I understand well that you don’t).
I didn’t, actually, say that if someone shows me a missing link that I’m abandoning my faith in God. I said I would have a rethink on what I believe. To which I am absolutely entitled. As you are entitled to think what you think.
And I absolutely question Bush’s competence, but that’s another blog for another site…
September 9th, 2005 at at 1:00 pm
rmadison said:
“Essentially, you’re saying you’ll abandon your belief in God, pending scientific discovery “X” (”missing link”, dark matter, Bush competence, etc)”
Now I don’t mean to speak for Tiff, but… I think what she’s getting at is actually the polar opposite of this. The point is that fundamentalist strains of theists are typically going to adhere to strictly literal interpretation of their religious doctrines which will inevitably put them at odds with scientific advances and discoveries. As such, strict literalists tend to warrant the anti-science, anti-intellectual reputations they garner.
The distinction we’re trying to draw at Eternal Revolution is as Christ followers largely of the “emergent church” variety who maintain a compatibility with science. As such, our faith does not collapse when the earth is determined to be billions of years old rather than 6,000 years old. There is a rejection of the false choice set up between “creationism” and “evolutionism”.
I know that wasn’t the specific question and not even close to the nature of this post, but I thought it worthy of clarification.
September 9th, 2005 at at 1:46 pm
In regards to the GOD or NOT website format proposed by LBBP….if you’re honestly wanting to engage both sides of this debate, maybe you should keep the format of the carnival a little more neutral rather than blatantly mocking theists for their beliefs. Just a thought.
September 9th, 2005 at at 2:12 pm
Stacia has a good point. On second look, that format would probably offend theists. It’s still funny as hell, but it might not be right.
September 9th, 2005 at at 3:16 pm
Tiffany Says:
We’ve been asked to “prove” the existence of our God. I’m merely reversing the request, to prove that there is real evidence of our evolution as the THEORY asserts.
In regards to “prove to me that God exists”, I don’t put that responsibility on you, or any other theist. If God is out there, and wants me to believe in him, then…what could possibly keep that from happening? Likewise, if God is out there, and does not want me to believe in him…well…who can go against God, right?
(I know, I know…”freewill”…that’s a topic for another thread, I think.)
In regards to you “reversing the request, to prove that there is real evidence of our evolution as the THEORY asserts”, it’s already been done. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the name of the theory which explains this fact. We can call the fact of evolution whatever you want, but for simplicity’s sake, “evolution” makes about as much sense as anything.
Anyway, I clearly have a fondness for the ToE, but it has absolutely no impact on my religious beliefs. None. Nada. Zip. I’m an atheist, quite frankly, because I read the bible. Not because I read the “Origin of Species”.
Maybe I didn’t pay close enough attention to the comments in Chad’s thread, but I didn’t see any atheists basing their “godless” worldviews on the ToE, or any other branch of science. However, I *did* see (and I think it was Chad actually) somebody indicate that the universe clearly exhibited design, and where there is design, there must be a design-er.
It seems to me that this group of atheists is quite capable of maintaining a Godless worldview that is completely independent of science, but I don’t see that same capability (yet, and from this limited “feeling out phase”) from the theists. It’s as if the theists are desperately searching for a real-world, scientific, basis/justification/rationale with which to support their faith. Which seems to me to be the very antithesis of what it means to have faith.
September 9th, 2005 at at 3:24 pm
I don’t disagree some people could and probably would be offended. It depends on how much of a sense of humor people really have. However, within this format I could envision a whole gambit of both theistic and non-theistic iconoclastic imagery that would make effective commentary for both sides of the various issues.
For example; one image could be a dollar bill. Many people “worship” wealth. Is this a valid belief system? I don’t think so, but some people probably do. Comment threads could be attached to each image and discussion/debate could then begin comparing and contrasting the relative strengths and weaknesses of the ideology expressed. It would be necessary to review any image submissions prior to posting on the site so that an equal balance of theist/non-theist pro/con can be maintained. The image or images added could be linked thematically with the debate topics for each carnival.
In this format it would be just as reasonable to discuss the relevant merits of the FSM as it would be to discuss Jesus. Or expressed from the opposite side, it would provide just as much opportunity for theists to make fun of non-theists.
The final choice is of course up to you ~I AM~, but I think the GOD or NOT site would be worth doing on it’s own even if it meant thinking of something else for the carnival.
September 9th, 2005 at at 3:25 pm
Tiffany Says:
I actually DO believe in science, when it is provable fact.
I got bad news for you. You’re gonna hate science, because science deals in degrees of certainty, and probabilities. But it doesn’t deal in “proofs”, like math or logic do.
Science doesn’t create the facts. Nature has already done that for us. Science just attempts to help us mere humans understand those facts, and their inter-relatedness.
In science, a “fact” is a very lowly thing (like a pawn, in chess*). The highest thing in science - the goal of science in fact - are theories. Theories explain facts. Facts are at the bottom of the totem pole, theories are at the top.
*Note: Philidor once said, “Pawns are the soul of the game. They alone create attack and defense, the way they are deployed decides the fate of the game.” So, even though facts, like pawns, are “lowly” things, they still determine the entire game of science.
September 9th, 2005 at at 3:32 pm
~I AM~ Says:
How about IM? It’s pronounced the same way, and it’s not a sentence.
Sorry mate…for me, it’s going to be “Sam”
Sam ~I Am~.
September 9th, 2005 at at 3:32 pm
“If God is out there, and wants me to believe in him, then…what could possibly keep that from happening?” - rmadison
…nope, I’m still just getting dial tone…
September 9th, 2005 at at 4:33 pm
Sorry mate…for me, it’s going to be “Sam”
LOL! That’s my favorite.
September 9th, 2005 at at 5:16 pm
LBBP, I appreciate the fact that you’re willing to allow mocking from both sides. That’s very generous of you. Seeing as how most atheists don’t hold anything to be sacred, however, I can’t imagine that the effect of your joke would be the same on both sides. Ultimately the idea behind your proposed GOD or NOT format (regardless of the diversity of images you might use) is to ridicule the very notion of belief in God by suggesting that God’s existence is something that we can vote on based upon whether a certain representation of God appeals to us or not. I’m sure that to you and the other atheists out there this would be very amusing. And if your goal in creating this website is to merely provide comical relief for yourself and other atheists, then go for it. I’m sure it will be a smashing hit. But please don’t try and pretend like your goal in creating such a site is to provide a forum for open, honest discussion between atheists and theists. For such a discussion to take place there has to be at least some level of respect between the two sides. If the format of the site itself doesn’t communicate that respect, how do you expect the content to?
September 9th, 2005 at at 5:18 pm
Rmadison & LBBP:
“If God is out there, and wants me to believe in him, then…what could possibly keep that from happening?”
It’s called Free Will.
Given, (we believe) by God so we are able to make the CHOICE whether we believe in & love Him.
It’s sort of like looking at the rarity & value of falling in love, & giving that love to someone else. Love only has real value when it’s freely and 100% given from one person to another, like a gift. It’s not something that can be demanded, nor even dictated by relationship (family…for instance. You don’t HAVE to love who you are related to, though we often do or choose to).
Now imagine that you can indeed *make* someone love you. Now, as convenient & helpful as this would have seemed at certain times in all of our lives… It would have made the affections of the person who was *made* to love somewhat empty & unfulfilling, because you would feel as if that love wasn’t truly felt & freely given to you.
Much like I think it would feel to know you’re loved because you possess great quantities of money, power, or extraordinary looks. Not quite the same as being loved for one’s quirkiness, intelligence, fabulous sense of humor, warm personality, and etc.
I, and probably many Christians, believe that the reason we are allowed by God to choose to believe or not to believe is that if and when we as human beings choose God, it is a falling in love process. It is not demanded of us, we are not *made* to believe & love him, therefore our faith, love & relationship with Him has more value to Him.
Mushy, I know. But you asked.
P.S. I’d like to add, for the record, that we Christians (and, I suspect, Buddhas, Hindus, Muslims) are not walking around, 100% certain that God exists, that we are right, and that you are wrong.
I often wonder if there IS a God, since He is not tangible & I cannot see nor touch him. I know other Christians feel the same. So as I make these arguments for what I believe, I feel it is only fair to say that it mine is a liquid, moving, changeable faith… and I like it that way. I don’t want to become so entrenched in what I believe that I’m not open to new knowledge & possibilities that I’ve perhaps not considered.
It’s a double edged sword.
September 9th, 2005 at at 5:30 pm
RMadison,
One more thing, perhaps we theists are attempting to utilize science to talk with you about our belief, because, complex as each of our reasons are to have chosen to believe, you would never be persuaded by the simple fact that somehow, somewhere, each of us had a moment or series of moments that were heart-driven and led us to know that there is something greater than ourselves.
You said: “Science doesn’t create the facts. Nature has already done that for us. Science just attempts to help us mere humans understand those facts, and their inter-relatedness.”
Which, really, is a reiteration of what I’d written before:
“Science is, after all, an exploration and desire to understand our surroundings, then to use that to try to improve them as well as ourselves, …? If our surroundings and our species existed before…then Science can still exist if there is a God who created us….
At least we agree on something.
September 9th, 2005 at at 5:40 pm
I like Popeye’s version: “I yam what I yam. Hugagaga!”
September 9th, 2005 at at 6:51 pm
“I, and probably many Christians, believe that the reason we are allowed by God to choose to believe or not to believe is that if and when we as human beings choose God, it is a falling in love process. It is not demanded of us, we are not *made* to believe & love him, therefore our faith, love & relationship with Him has more value to Him.” - Tiffany
You are not *made* to fall in love with him, but the penalty for failure to do so is eternal damnation?
September 9th, 2005 at at 7:38 pm
“But please don’t try and pretend like your goal in creating such a site is to provide a forum for open, honest discussion between atheists and theists.” - Stacia
First of all, you are in no position to judge whether I am “pretending” or not. You don’t know me. I think humor (for those that are open minded enough) is one of the few truly positive ways for polarized groups to communicate. Sadly, it is probably true that most “devot” Christians are probably too insecure to appreciate it.
Ultimately the idea behind your proposed GOD or NOT format (regardless of the diversity of images you might use) is to ridicule the very notion of belief in God by suggesting that God’s existence is something that we can vote on based upon whether a certain representation of God appeals to us or not.
What you have just described is exactly what we humans in fact do. Who wrote the Bible as we know it today? A bunch of people got together and voted to decide which stories were or were not “scripture”. The extremists amongst the Christians think the only version of the Bible that is the “correct” is the KJV. They voted and decided that was the one they liked. People vote on religion everyday. Does that negate it or “ridicule” it? I guess that depends on your point of view.
September 9th, 2005 at at 7:39 pm
LBBP says: “You are not *made* to fall in love with him, but the penalty for failure to do so is eternal damnation?”
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere (I think?), there are many of us Christians who question if it is really as cut & dried as all that. I’ve gotten into arguments about this, but I personally feel that a loving God would have some sort of final opportunity to accept His presence.
I refuse to believe that tribal people in Africa who’ve never heard of an omnipotent God, loving Hindus or Buddhists, faithful Jews (etc. etc.) are going to be left to wither in Hell.
But I do think that if there is, in fact, a God, that there will be folks who will still refuse to believe or to subscribe to His will out of pride, fear, etc. even if they are looking directly into His face.
A persuading read on the subject is C.S. Lewis’ “The Great Divorce”. Lewis’ portrayal of Heaven and Hell makes much more sense to me than popularly clung-to ideas of the same. I particularly was struck by the portions of the story he writes, where residents of Hell (some of them Christians) travel by bus from Hell to Heaven…and when faced with the fact that they are in Heaven, refuse to stay, refuse to believe that that is Heaven, refuse to give up their pride or vision of what Heaven or God *should* be…and prefer to go back to Hell, which is what they know or where they will be able to cling to their vision of themselves, their personal prides, etc. (This group included one very self-satisfied Christian writer, which I thought was appropriate in light of all the TV Evangelicals out there…)
I mean, really, who wants to sit around in Heaven & play a harp for all of eternity… pretty mundane, I’d think. If there is a Heaven (and I believe there is some sort of afterlife), I think it will be very unlike what Christian/Muslim/Mormon/Catholic/Hindu ideals have tried to make it out to be.
I feel the same about Hell.
What if there is a Hell, and the actual punishment is not to burn for eternity, but to have realized that you do have a God who has made you & by some decision of yours (now or at the end of our lives or whenever that last chance is) you have chosen to be separated from him forever.
Kind of like (to use the analogy of true love again) realizing you have found the perfect “one” for you, your very own soul mate, and then you have chosen (for whatever reason), to not be with them. And then it’s Forever.
Imagine the pain & devastation to know that your love is out there & you are forever separated from them.
That would be a particular kind of Hell, wouldn’t it?
September 9th, 2005 at at 7:54 pm
Tiffany:
Are you quite sure you’re a Christian? You seem to disagree with vast swaths of Christian teaching. They way you talk about god, you almost sound more like a Sufi at times.
I tried on a lot of religions on my way to atheism, but I never had the gall to roll my own. How do you justify that? Why are YOU right?
September 9th, 2005 at at 7:58 pm
DUB, rmadison, et al.:
There are some who call me… Tim?
September 9th, 2005 at at 8:04 pm
Sorry mate…for me, it’s going to be “Sam”
Sam ~I Am~.
I have to admit, every time I see I AM, lines of Dr. Seuss run through my head. I’ve thought of calling him Sam, too.
DerangedGreat minds think alike…September 9th, 2005 at at 9:16 pm
“You know much that is hidden, o Tim.”
Tim the Enchanter?
September 9th, 2005 at at 9:21 pm
Come no further, for death awaits you all with nasty, big, pointy teeth.
September 9th, 2005 at at 10:04 pm
I Am,
I think I may have missed the part where I said I was, um, “right”.
Wasn’t this a dialogue where we are merely exchanging our thoughts & ideas? I apologize if I’m not quite fitting into the generalized little box that you thought all Christians resided….and making anyone uncomfortable.
If you’re referring (with the “gall to create my own religion” comment) to the thoughts on Heaven & Hell, well, a lot of that comes from C.S. Lewis, and is supplemented as well with some fascinating conversations with some great (Christian) friends who also have the “gall” to think for themselves. If you’re thinking more about the “multiple lives” thing, well, I’m just saying that I WONDER if it’s possible, considering that *if* there’s eternal life, what the heck are we going to do for all of eternity?
You say you’ve tried on many religions trying to figure out what you believe… Have done the same over here, and am not sure you have to 100% subscribe to the dogma one church has to offer. Know what I mean? But I never said, and would never assert, that I have it all figured out or think I’m *right*. Which is more than I can say for a lot of people.
September 9th, 2005 at at 10:19 pm
Tiffany:
Maybe my point was poorly stated. First of all, I said “Why are YOU right?’, not “Why are you RIGHT?” It’s a subtle difference, but an important one. Second of all, I AM exchanging thoughts and ideas. I’m not sure what they seem like, but these are my thoughts and ideas. Take my word for it.
Let me begin again. I’ll make some statements that I believe to be true. You believe in the Christian god. You believe in Jesus as the son of god and savior of mankind. You believe that god wrote the Bible, or at least had a holy ghostwriter (couldn’t resist). How can you think that your beliefs which are, at times, drastically different from the word of god and the words of Jesus are proper? I use proper because you don’t seem to like the word “right.” They way I mean right, however, is not what you’re assuming. I believe that everything I believe is right, or I wouldn’t believe it. That doesn’t mean that I believe that everything I believe is EXCLUSIVELY right, meaning that all contrary positions are wrong. Sometimes, yes, but not always.
I hope this was clearer. I wasn’t attacking you. I want to know how C.S. Lewis gets to stand so close to Jesus in your belief system.
September 9th, 2005 at at 10:36 pm
I Am,
C.S. Lewis is a well-respected, intellectual, strongly Christian writer who wasn’t afraid to explore different spiritual ideas (in addition to being the author of the “Chronicles of Narnia”.) He was also a staunch Atheist for years & years before he changed his mind & became a Theist. I respect that and feel that he possibly has more to say on the subject because he came to faith and wasn’t just shown bible school at a young age….
Reading some of his books has actually gelled my faith further, by expressing what he believes and yet by also showing some level of openmindedness. Some are stories & some are spiritual meanderings by an obviously learned man. (I’m curious, have you ever read any of his works?)
As for your assertion that God wrote the bible…as I understand it, it was an assortment of prophets, Jesus’ disciples and those they taught after Jesus’ death that wrote the chapters…
I’m going to be honest here (risking a potshot or two, I’m sure) and say that I’ve never managed to read the entire bible. Partially because, until recently, I had the KJV, and that is s l o w reading because of the prose. So perhaps the chapter that you allude to where it is “God writing the bible” is one I’ve missed.
Let’s step away from my faith for a bit… (I need a small rest and must needs put down my sword) and let me ask you… why is it you came to believe as you do? Why do you believe there is nothing greater than ourselves nor life after death?
September 9th, 2005 at at 10:55 pm
C.S. Lewis is a well-respected, intellectual, strongly Christian writer
…and just a man.
I read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe when I was a kid, and it was one of may favorite books (thought I barely remember it now). That’s it. I was busy reading the actual holy book of your faith several times. I hope you get around to it some day.
As for your assertion that God wrote the bible
Not mine. Many of the world’s Christian churches (including Catholicism) teach this. Have you really never heard this before? They don’t say he sat down with a Smith Corona, but he “implanted” the Bible int he human authors, and the words are his. Hence “word of god.”
that is s l o w reading
Well, god would have a lot of time on his hands.
Why do you believe there is nothing greater than ourselves nor life after death?
Why don’t you believe in unicorns? (You don’t, do you?) No one has ever seen one. No one has ever discovered unicorn fossils. There are plenty of books about them and lots of paintings, but I don’t find them in the forest. If you swore that you had a pet unicorn, you would be locked away in a mental hospital. When you swear that there’s an invisible, all-powerful being in the sky and that if we believe in him, we’ll live in paradise forever, you’re allowed to continue walking the streets. Strength in numbers, I guess.
September 10th, 2005 at at 2:28 am
I Am,
Well, that was a pretty unsatisfactory answer to my question….(Unicorns. Well, thanks. That really cleared up a sincere question I had for you).
I understand that you may not want to make an argument for what you believe, after all, no matter what “we” can say (and after what I have actually said, in direct honesty to show that there are those of us who are not “I know everything & you are absolutely wrong” Christians, and are still learning & thinking, etc.), we’ve left ourselves open to potshots & cheap jokes. I can see where you wouldn’t actually want to try and defend your perspective, you might find yourself on the receiving end of the same.
I had garnered a lot of respect for you, as well as what you & Chad had agreed to, but now you are just resorting to condescension & mocking to make a point. I’m sort of done, actually, with this conversation.
Maybe another time I’ll join the fray.
And, for the record… since you’ve felt it’s your place to mention it… I AM busy reading the sections of the bible that I’ve missed, in a version I can better understand. Apparently, in conversations with Atheists, it isn’t cool to display any sort of imperfection, after all, we should have every detail all figured out. So we can then be condemned for that.
And this from a guy who wrote:
“I’m surprised that this didn’t get ugly. I thought we might have a religious rumble on our hands, but (mostly) everyone has been able to conduct a civil debate”
September 10th, 2005 at at 2:54 am
Tiffany:
The question can’t be “Why DO you believe in nothing?” It has to be “Why DON’T you believe in anything?” I was drawing an analogy for you to help you understand how lack of evidence leads to lack of belief. Atheists don’t see any difference between god and unicorns.
I don’t see anything wrong in my reply. I don’t think I was unpleasant in any way. I was simply debating the point. Does anyone else think I was out of line here?
September 10th, 2005 at at 3:04 am
I just put up a page at godornot.com. It’s very, very simple and shouldn’t offend anyone, although I’m apparently a poor judge of that based on the comments above. The full rules of the carnival are there, but the email addresses are not yet accepting mail. I’m 99% sure the text on the site is final, but let me know if you have suggestions or criticism.
I will start accepting requests to host. Just email me at my regular address for now. I’ll take the email addresses live after a day or two. I want to give people time to offer feedback.
September 10th, 2005 at at 5:30 am
The uttering of the tertigrammaton is strictly forbidden. Never again do such a thing. I feel I was just party to something none should be party to. Besides, it takes away from the whole anonymity thing, and, due to previous comments, you may have Muslims out to kill you. Among others.
About the website: nice, simple design layout. A focus on balance (down to mentioning the atheist site first in one sentence, then in the next the theist site gets mentioned first). That being said, anyone who’s read my blog (all three of you out there) know I’m big on racism, and I’m not playin’ this whole black and white shit, Yam!!
You know I’m playin’, right?
There will never exist a perfect compromise. Black and white (the actual colors) do convey ideas of purity and cleanliness versus, well, the opposite. It plays on subconcious levels. I’m starting to babble again, but I think my supposed point might be the continued negative associations with atheism. By the way, did I mention it looks good and I think it needs no changes?
September 10th, 2005 at at 8:48 am
Nice work on the website. I think it looks really good. FYI - We’d be glad to host it at ER at some point.
September 10th, 2005 at at 10:11 am
DUB:
The uttering of the tertigrammaton is strictly forbidden. Never again do such a thing. I feel I was just party to something none should be party to. Besides, it takes away from the whole anonymity thing…
Huh? What did I say?
Chad:
Do you want the second one?
September 10th, 2005 at at 3:58 pm
Tiffany,
If you aren’t going to have thicker skin, then I agree you should probably not participate. I AM’s unicorn analogy is a perfectly legitimate one. You must understand that to an atheist, there’s little difference between a unicorn and god. Neither has ever been proven to exist, and both seem pretty ridiculous.
Actually, I’d go so far as to say that unicorns are more likely to exist, or to have existed at some point. After all, they’re not much different from modern horses. It’s even possible they’ve found the skeletons of unicorns, but the horn didn’t make it. I mean, deer shed their antlers. A rhino’s horn is made out of densely packed hair. Rhino’s are killed for those horns, so is it completely absurd to think that unicorns might also have been? Therefore, it is possible that these horse-like creatures went extinct because people placed value on their horns and killed for them, leading to the mass extinction of an entire species. There are those who believe we’ve done this with other animals, so why not unicorns, too? Every once in a while an animal long believed extinct is found… I think the odds of a unicorn some day being found alive or fossilized are far more likely than the odds that I might spend eternity in hell regretting that I never fell in love with god.
You can call this response disrespectful, but it’s not intended to be. I’m not calling you a crazy, holy rolling, Bible thumper. I’m not being mean to YOU. I’m simply trying to explain to you how strongly I feel about god’s non-existence. I believe I AM was not at all out of line in his responses to you. Frankly, if anyone was rude here, if anyone was being testy or harsh, it was you.
You call yourself a “Christian”, or so it would seem… but you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. Either you believe in Christian dogma - whichever flavor of it you like - or you don’t. Based on what you said, you HAVE created your own religion - and it might be based somewhat on Christianity, but as a formerly devout Christian, I assure you… you’re not a Christian.
September 10th, 2005 at at 7:36 pm
Addict no more,
You’re right, I should have a thicker skin… perhaps wrangling over theology with atheists will create one.
As far as being a Christian, I am perhaps better able to say whether that is my faith or not. I assure you it is. Just because I’m openminded about certain things doesn’t mean I don’t believe in one God & the life of Jesus, etc.
Good to know that you were once a Christian, however… At least you’ve once stood where we do and through whatever experiences & learning have chosen atheism as your belief system. You are likely well versed in both sides & I’d respect your opinion all the more for it.
As far as whether God actually exists, well, I’d like to use the Bible as a historical text & cite the many accounts of Jesus’ life from the various authors who actually knew him or knew someone who knew him, etc. but I know perfectly well that this will not be a solid argument to nonbelievers.
I guess this leaves me where I’d be if I tried to persuade you that I saw a Unicorn.
September 10th, 2005 at at 8:16 pm
At least you’ve once stood where we do and through whatever experiences & learning have chosen atheism as your belief system. You are likely well versed in both sides & I’d respect your opinion all the more for it.
I was raised Catholic and majored in Religion in college. Do I get some of that respect?
The tale begins here, if you’re interested.
September 10th, 2005 at at 9:32 pm
Yes, we’ll host the 2nd carnival. Looking forward to it…
September 12th, 2005 at at 2:26 pm
I Am,
Definitely (re: deserving respect).
I checked out your story… interesting stuff.
I look forward to more debates on God or Not.
September 13th, 2005 at at 5:13 am
~I AM~:
“Huh? What did I say?”
My comment about the tertigrammaton was prompted by your earlier statement:
“There are some who call me… T_m”
S’pose to be a play on the whole tetragrammaton thing. Guess it was a phenomenal dud.
January 22nd, 2008 at at 5:11 pm
debts statutes of limitation california…
Chilean proportioning opposite Loveland …