Close Encounter of the Evangelical Kind
So, a little over a week ago, I went out for what I thought would be a routine business lunch at a local country club. It was my first meeting with this particular contact, but nothing in our phone conversations indicated that we would be discussing anything other than products and pricing. Instead, I wound up sitting there for two hours, having one of the most fun religion conversations I’ve ever had with a Christian.
We managed to stay on topic for a while, but then he asked me why we left New York. While it’s certainly not the primary reason, September 11 is always a part of the answer to that question. He started explaining his thoughts on the causes of Muslim terrorism, but he left out one fairly important little detail… Islam. He was talking about the desperation of poverty as the sole cause for terrorism. I pointed out that religion could not be excluded from this conversation, and that faith invariably leads to violence. I used Richard Reid and Eric Rudolph as examples of citizens of affluent nations who became terrorists because of religion. At this point, ignoring Eric Rudolph entirely, he launched into the 24 hour news networks’ party line talking points about Islam being a religion of peace. I’ve had about all I can take of this from the media mynah birds running around our society avoiding thought and attempting to sound informed by simply repeating whatever Wolf Blitzer or some other talking head tells them as loudly and frequently as they can. I asked him if he’d read the Qur’an; he had not. With a triumphant tone in his voice, he asked if I had read the Bible.
“Three times.”
“Oh,” he said, “I’m on my second time through.”
It was at this point that I informed him he was picking a fight with a heavyweight. He was unintimidated by my religion major, so we continued. I spoke of an Episcopalian friend of mine, and he volunteered that he too was an Episcopalian. After I got in a quick, snide comment about Henry VIII, he asked about my background. I told him I was raised Roman Catholic.
“But you’re not one anymore?”
“No, I’m an atheist.”
That’s usually the end of this type of conversation, but he pressed on. He asked me the difference between an atheist and an agnostic.
“An agnostic is an atheist who’s afraid that god’s going to be pissed off if he’s wrong,” I quipped, and then dealt seriously with the question. It was my certainty that god does not exist that he couldn’t deal with. I explained that not believing in something is the default position and that I have found no compelling evidence that god exists. He assured me that the evidence is everywhere.
Then we started the scripture phase. He started throwing out passages (mostly NT). While he consistently made good arguments (considering), he was a poor speaker, and he became frustrated that I was finishing most of his points for him whilst he hemmed and hawed. Then it was my turn to use the Bible. I started asking how he could believe in and love a god that did such awful things, citing many of the passages I used in the erstwhile God is a Dick series. As is typical, he hid behind metaphor and did his best to avoid discussing the OT.
Then we talked about good and evil. Unlike many members of more extreme churches, he readily admitted that Christianity is not a prerequisite for being a good person. His position is that some people really need Christ to find the way, while others find it on their own. I am a naturally good person. That’s not just my claim; he said he could see it in my aura! I don’t recall the Book of Auras, but I may have to brush up on that. Anyway, he said he had been living a wicked life, and that he was turning to religion to be as good a person as I am. He said he trusted me, and that he could tell me anything. I had no idea yet what that would mean, but keep reading.
“So,” I said “if I can be a good person without Jesus, and good people go to heaven, what would happen if I died today?” Well, as it turns out, there’s a catch. He said that Jesus would come to see me and that he would understand my doubts. Jesus would then ask me to accept him, and I would get into heaven if I did so. I’m sure you’re all thinking the same thing I was. “What, then, is the use of faith?” I don’t know about you, but if Jesus showed up and gave me some proof of his existence and power, I’d go back to church in a second. If you died, and Jesus asked you personally to believe in him, you’d have to be a total jackass to say no. So, where does faith come in? We talked about Paul, and how he had no need of faith. We talked about Thomas, and how he demonstrated a total lack of faith. We talked about Francis and how the little fleshy nail heads on his palms pretty much removed all doubt. Well, as it turns out, my associate also had no need for faith.
So far, he had been impressing me. I had never before met (in person) a Christian so capable of competently defending his faith. His skills as an apologist were admirable. However, never confuse smart with sane. I find more and more in life that if one constructs a Venn diagram of the two, the shaded area is far smaller than expected. He then told me that he had had a personal encounter with Jesus.
I nearly got up to leave, but I had to hear this one. He told me about a time when he was a very young child. He was in bed at night, alone in the dark. Satan™ had come to claim his soul.
“Did you see him?”
“No, but it was him.”
So far this doesn’t exactly stand up in court, but he continued. He called out to Jesus, and Jesus saved him.
“Did you see him?”
“No, I felt him. It’s far more powerful.”
Right. Either that, or it was gas. Now, I had kind of started to like this guy, so I didn’t want to bring down the hammer of logic too hard.
“Listen,” I said, “I don’t want you to take this the wrong way, and I don’t want to belittle your experience, but when I was a child, I was in bed one night and saw the Easter Bunny. I didn’t really see the Easter Bunny.”
“This wasn’t visual. I felt him. It was him.”
Where does one go from there in an argument? This man will always believe in god because he had indigestion once as a tot.
Then he started talking about other “evidence” of god, including the story of The Blue Nun. If you don’t know the story, follow the link. It’s a hoot.
Anyway, I walked out of there with homework.
1. Read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis – I asked if there was more to it than the trilemma, and he said there is. I’ll have to check it out when I have time.
2. Read Don’t Throw Away Tomorrow by Schuller – Has anyone else read this? I don’t know anything about it.
3. Research a painting of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane that supposedly emits light. – I asked him if he’d ever heard of Thomas Kincaid. He got the joke, and didn’t seem to appreciate it.
So, that’s it. Shortly thereafter, the check showed up. I paid because the conversation was well worth the cost of a couple of salads. I hope you enjoyed this chance to be a fly on the wall.
~I AM~
July 31st, 2006 at at 12:35 am
“This wasn’t visual. I felt him. It was him.”
Where does one go from there in an argument?
I AM, you have such patience! That’s a great story.
I had a similar discussion with my husband’s much older brother a few years ago. It was just after we had told him that we were atheists and that we had been for some time. He is an educated man with a PhD in English and a retired professor, and I had thought him to be a reasonable man even though he believed in a supernatural sky daddy. Well, after we made our announcement to him, he started trying to debate the existence of gawd with us on a regular basis.
Then one night I was chatting with him and we got into the inevitable gawd debating and when I asked him for evidence for the existence of his sky pappy, he told me that when he was a young man and in the military he had an out-of-body experience and found himself floating up by the ceiling looking down on himself and his commanding officer as they were having a conversation below. He said it was gawd that took his soul from his body for several minutes. I was speechless for a few moments and then suggested cautiously that he most likely had some psychological hallucination or something and he growled, “YOU CAN’T DISPROVE WHAT I HAVE EXPERIENCED.” I said “alrighty then” and backed off and we haven’t discussed religion or gawd since.
July 31st, 2006 at at 3:55 am
It is rather unbelievable as to how many persons have experienced waking dreams. I have experienced two of them myself — they are quite characteristic: paralysis in the attempt to call out for help, a total inability to recall what happened after this panic (since the person went back into total sleep), absolute conviction of the reality of the experience…etc., and they always attach a religious or paranormal explanation to the event (just as I did as a child).
That Blue Nun story is hilarious.
(1) I read nearly all of C.S. Lewis’ books in my attempt, early on, to shore up doubts. He makes much of the argument from morality in Mere Christianity, although of course it is a pitiful argument to begin with, in what he calls the “universal conscience”. (for whatever reason, empathy isn’t capable of being produced biologically, without the magic soul juice) He spends a large part of the book on the “Moral Law”.
His prose is dry, and especially verbose, but he is readable. He also argues (besides the Trilemma) such concepts as the timelessness of God (using an analogy to a writer with a novel) in considering how God hears and answers prayers, and weaves this into the “plan”.
I’ve never heard of (2) or (3)
July 31st, 2006 at at 5:22 am
Excellent post. Your account made me feel like I was there. I’m curious to hear more about the “evidence” he offered for the existence of god. If there was evidence, belief would not require faith. Intelligent Christians usually acknolwedge this and prefer to go with faith. Since he gave you homework, did you recommend anything for him to read?
July 31st, 2006 at at 7:03 am
Since he gave you homework, did you recommend anything for him to read?
There was no point. He and Jesus are childhood pals. Nothing he reads will change his mind. I actually did mention in passing that he should pick up The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, but there’s about zero chance that he will. I think he could get into Jaynes. They’re both a little spooky. If I told him to read Sam Harris, though, he would just shut it out in the first chapter.
July 31st, 2006 at at 7:10 am
That Blue Nun story is hilarious.
I didn’t get into it in the post because it would have distracted the reader from my primary narrative, but he also told me that a friend of his spends a lot of time out in the wilderness doing archaeological reserach, and that friend has run into Her Blueness on several occasions. He considers this extraordinary because there’s no “evidence” that she ever went that far north.
Yes. What a find. Perhaps he, his friend, the Blue Nun, Bigfoot and Nessie can all have a picnic some day.
July 31st, 2006 at at 7:18 am
It is rather unbelievable as to how many persons have experienced waking dreams. I have experienced two of them myself — they are quite characteristic: paralysis in the attempt to call out for help, a total inability to recall what happened after this panic (since the person went back into total sleep), absolute conviction of the reality of the experience…etc., and they always attach a religious or paranormal explanation to the event (just as I did as a child).
When trying to explain to my brother-in-law that he may have experienced a hallucination, I also brought up about the waking dreams, using Psychiatric sources and he would not listen. He has convinced himself that it was gawd. I think much of his belief stems from his intense training in seminary when he was a young man. He was about to be ordained when he suddenly for whatever reason went into teaching instead. Like I AM’s aquaintance, he firmly and adamently believes that gawd came and did magic tricks with his mind and body and has been an xian of the devout Anglican variety since.
July 31st, 2006 at at 9:14 am
Hello i am, it’s good to hear from you again. I hope you find the time to read Mere Christianity. I’d like to hear your thoughts about it.
If you were to assign some homework reading, what would it be?
July 31st, 2006 at at 10:24 am
I would assign ‘The Age of Reason’ by Thomas Paine. Even though he rejects atheism, he demolishes the idea that the Bible is the word of God.
July 31st, 2006 at at 10:26 am
I was argueing the Iraq quagmire with my jesus-freak uncle, and I listed all of Bush’s reason’s for going to war that all turned out to be crap, WMD, spreading Democracy, ties to Al Quida etc etc. His arguement was that the “REAL” reason we went to war is unknown to us little civilians, himself included, and if I knew THAT reason, we would all agree that Bush was right.
It occured to me that this is pure religious thinking, applied to politics. Sure you may have all of these reasons for not believing in god. But the Best reason, the best reason of all, is the one where there is absolutely no proof of. In fact the point that it is unknowable, means it is irrefutable, and if it is irrefutable, it must be true. Therefore, since we don’t know the true secret reason for going to war, You can’t say it was a stupid reason, and since you can’t prove it’s stupid, it must be a good idea.
It alsmost feels a little like logic, doesn’t?
July 31st, 2006 at at 2:12 pm
Very good post, I love hearing about conversations with theists that happen in person. And like you said, I bet having this blog really helps you remember specific events in the Bible to use in a debate. In my discussions with theists, it also sometimes ends with them saying how they felt God or Jesus personally. I don’t know if they think this is going to convince me, or if they are just looking for a way to end the conversation without admitting defeat. Of course, it’s better to lose an argument than to look insane.
I’ve glanced through Mere Christianity once, because a friend of mine wanted to see if I could handle one of Lewis’ arguments. And as you’d expect, there was nothing to it.
That’s pretty amazing that he would argue that. And I guess the only reason why Bush wouldn’t give the true reason is that us little people wouldn’t understand. Like Bush is more competent than the average person…
July 31st, 2006 at at 4:26 pm
Hey I AM – good to see you back.
I agree with vjack, for what it’s worth – reading books at a theist’s request should always be a generosity returned in kind. If he expects you to read some book but refuses to read one you select in return, all that means is that he expects you to listen to and consider his arguments but doesn’t intend to grant you the same courtesy in return.
I do have a review of Mere Christianity on Ebon Musings, if you’re interested.
July 31st, 2006 at at 6:39 pm
Delta,
His arguement was some crazy rant about the eye on the pyramid on the back of a dollar, and how the latin on the back of a dollar “Novus Ordo Seclorum” means that the mason’s or the illuminati or some shit are taking over the country. I don’t readily buy into conspiracy theories, and this is a man who believes in demons, so I admit I only half listened.
Besides I have a magic rock that protects me from evil.
Any of you guys know what the hell he was talking about?
July 31st, 2006 at at 10:47 pm
Hehe Dull Blade, I think he’s talking about part of the plot from the book Angels and Demons by Dan Brown. Here’s a article about it. I didn’t read the article, but it looks like it might address your question
August 1st, 2006 at at 10:23 am
Aaahhhhh…I see now. I need to read more. I’ve been such a fool.
August 1st, 2006 at at 9:17 pm
Welcome Back I AM!
Good post. The Blue Nun story is interesting. I can’t find anything else about the nondecaying body, so I assume it was made up by the guy who wrote the page.
August 2nd, 2006 at at 7:29 am
Very interesting post. Just a couple of thoughts though…don’t be too quick to assume he wouldn’t read what you suggest. Odds are probably with your assumtion, but in this case, there’s nothing whatsoever to lose. I also got a chuckle with the Blue Nun story, and found it hilarious that when one googles Blue Nun, most of the hits refer to alchohol. Hmmm…
Keep posting!!
August 4th, 2006 at at 7:52 am
[...] Von hier (E): [...]
August 5th, 2006 at at 12:19 pm
You know, I’ve had plenty of earth shattering arguements with my jesus-freak uncle, and today I spent 3 hours in the sun, side by side with him busting up concrete and pouring some fresh. We really do get along just great.
We’re still family and I think that’s an important distinction to make. I don’t think we should ever let our passion for atheism ruin our family relationships.
I like to try and remember that religion is all nonsense, and nonsense isn’t something to destroy a family over. Now let’s have some beers and argue till we’re blue in the face, but we argue with nothing but love.
August 7th, 2006 at at 8:00 am
Try some Blue Nun wine instead of beer and see what happens….
August 10th, 2006 at at 4:14 pm
So I was listening to the radio and Thin Lizzy’s Jailbreak was on. The refrain goes “Tonight there’s gonna be a jailbreak,… somewhere in this town………”
I don’t know but, I’m guessing it’s going to happen at the jail. Just a hunch.
August 13th, 2006 at at 1:49 pm
That and a dime would not get you a gumball from a gumball machine.
I should think the “default position” would be the one that corresponds to the prevailing paradigm.
August 14th, 2006 at at 12:28 pm
You’ve had better arguments.
August 16th, 2006 at at 1:08 pm
1. Read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis – I asked if there was more to it than the trilemma, and he said there is. I’ll have to check it out when I have time.
I am interested in hearing your ideas about the Trilemma line of reasoning. Mere Christianity is the only book of Lewis’ that I have read all the way through, but that reasoning is by no means original to him. By the tone of your writing, it seems as if you consider this line of thought to be as inadequate as the rest of the evidence for God or for Christianity that you have blown off. I have not seen the robust comeback to the Trilemma, though, so I am curious what yours is.
Have you read any of Lee Strobel’s books The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, and The Case for a Creator? The style that these books are written in, as well as the content of them, appeal to me much more than Lewis’ writing did.
By way of background, I have been a Christian for 16 years, having also grown up Catholic but coming to Christ in college. I read Mere Christianity in the first few months after I accepted Christ, but I have read much more since then. Apologetics in general is a great hobby of mine, as I came to Christ in part through researching the evidence about Christianity versus that for other belief systems. I’m not religious but I do love the Lord, and if we ever met I would love talking with you about your default assumption if you were so inclined.
August 16th, 2006 at at 3:35 pm
Sounds to me like you chose the wrong college.
August 16th, 2006 at at 4:16 pm
My understanding is that the trilemma argument is not an argument for the existence of a god nor for the divinity of Jesus himself, but a rejection of the idea that Jesus was a non-divine “great moral teacher” whose words are recorded more or less accurately in the Gospels. No comeback is necessary to maintain the position that there is no god or that Jesus was not himself god, as the trilemma does not address either the possibilities that Jesus’ words in the Gospels are not accurate or that he did say the things attributed to him but did so because he was a Liar or Lunatic, rather than a Lord.
August 17th, 2006 at at 10:31 am
Sounds to me like you chose the wrong college.
I went to a secular college (University of Virginia), that had nothing to do with me coming to Christ. You can just be honest and say that you assumed that I went to a Christian school and therefore was fed a biased account of the support for Christianity, so the fact that I came to Christ based on the evidence I saw is only evidence that I selectively ignored the evidence that I didn’t like. UVa is as anti-Christian in its faculty and policies as any other secular school, nobody in my classes did me any favors. Multicultaralism was all the rage then and was morphing with the feminist and gay-rights movements to create the postmodernist secular humanism that dominates all levels of education today, so I wasn’t esconced in some kind of insulated environment where my faith wasn’t challenged publicly and privately. (Not) Sorry to ruin your theory.
I was an agnostic when I got to school, so don’t assume that I had some reason to make sure that the evidence for Christ looked good. I was offended that Jesus claimed to be the only way to heaven and that my family, if they chose not to receive Christ, would not go to heaven with me, so I would not have counted myself a friendly inquirer. This is why I mentioned the books by Lee Strobel; he was an atheist and a journalist who conducted his own investigation from an approach of hostility to the gospel because his wife had become a Christian and he was ticked about it. Another proud athiest whose writings I read was Josh McDowell. He devoted himself in college to disproving Christianity in response to a challenge from some Christians he knew and ended up accepting Christ himself. Both of these two events occured at secular colleges. Not all of the students there buy into the myths that you did.
August 17th, 2006 at at 10:48 am
My understanding is that the trilemma argument is not an argument for the existence of a god nor for the divinity of Jesus himself, but a rejection of the idea that Jesus was a non-divine “great moral teacher” whose words are recorded more or less accurately in the Gospels. No comeback is necessary to maintain the position that there is no god or that Jesus was not himself god, as the trilemma does not address either the possibilities that Jesus’ words in the Gospels are not accurate or that he did say the things attributed to him but did so because he was a Liar or Lunatic, rather than a Lord.
Sure, you can choose to believe he was a Liar or a Lunatic, those are irrational choices though because the known evidence about Jesus both inside and outside the New Testament do not support those conclusions. But those conclusions are chosen all the time and are consistent with the attitude of hostility towards the existence of and any accountability to God. Your choice makes sense.
My question was whether there is a coherent, objectively verifiable line of thought to suggest that Jesus was a Liar or a Lunatic and not the Lord that He claimed to be, outside of the simple choice not to accept that He is Lord and so to choose the only other available conclusions. Sure, you can make this choice, but is there support for it outside your own hostility to God, or is your hostility to God the circular basis alone (I don’t want God, so I’ll choose Liar or Lunatic, because I don’t want God)?
Again, you are (I assume by your words and presence here) an athiest and a committed one at that. No need to waste emotion on finding someone who does not believe as you do. I’m not into fighting an unarmed person (one with no objective support for his positions), so if you believe what you believe just because you believe what you believe, then that’s cool and I can leave it at that if you can. If you are right, then I am the fool and you have nothing to worry about; you may be having more fun this way anyway. Feel good and believe I am a fool, no problem. As soon as we are done here then I probably won’t be back to this blog anyway and you won’t have to be reminded that I don’t have a whole lot of respect for someone who thinks only with their heart and not with their head.
August 17th, 2006 at at 12:34 pm
Drew,
Your reply is frankly insulting, and nonsensical to boot. Don’t take that the wrong way – I intend to keep this civil. However you make several assumptions about myself and my motives that are groundless and unwarranted, and most of your post seems inspired by nothing I’ve said at all.
You are correct in that I am an atheist, however little else in your comment that purports to describe me is accurate. I am curious how you came to form the (extensive) impressions you did, given how little I said.
You asked a question and I answered it. Perhaps you intended the question to be answered by I AM and only I AM, but in my experience these sorts of blog-comment discussions are more free-for-all than that. Still though, even if my response was unwelcome your reply does not really follow.
Let me address the question of the trilemma first, as you seem to have misunderstood me.
I have not read Mere Christianity myself; my knowledge of it derives from secondary discussions, reviews and such. I’ll just summarize the argument as I understand it myself, and you can correct any points you consider inaccurate.
Would you say that that is a reasonable and accurate summary? If not, what in it specifically do you take issue with?
Now, this whole argument (again, as I understand it) only applies if you do accept that basic premise: that the Gospels accurately record the words of a real historical figure called Jesus, who claimed among other things to be the son of god. The trilemma is about the invalidity of one single position: that the Jesus of the Gospels was a wise, but merely human, teacher of morality. It says nothing about the validity of other positions – for example, the position that there was a real historical Jesus who said the things attributed to him but was not actually wise or moral (ie that he was a liar or a lunatic – neither of these options are invalid in themselves), or the position that the Gospels are not accurate and the Jesus they describe never existed (that there was no Jesus, or that there was a Jesus but his words and deeds as reported in the Gospels are not accurate).
You are correct in one assumption – that I am an atheist. I am an atheist because I do not see there to be any convincing reason to believe that any ‘god’ exists, and further, because I find the idea of ‘god’ itself to be muddled and unclear. You claim that
But this is creating a false circularity. I don’t believe there is a god for reasons quite independent of the trilemma (naturally, since the trilemma says nothing about the necessity of god’s existence). Therefore, if presented with a claim that someone is the son of god, I will also regard this claim as false. Your argument here is analogous to claiming that the only reason I reject my friend Bob’s claim to be the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte is because I don’t want to believe it to be true. Actually, I disbelieve his claim because I have no reason to do otherwise (he has presented no convincing evidence) and therefore I must assume he is lying, joking or mad. I don’t choose to disbelieve him because I want his claim to be false; I find his claim to be without merit, and so I must disbelieve it.
(I should also note that what you describe above as your question is not at all what I understood you to be asking. From your original question I took you to be asking how an atheist could disbelieve having read the trilemma argument. My response was simply to point out that the trilemma is not actually an argument for the existence of god.)
I think that covers everything relevant to the trilemma discussion. As to the rest of your comment, I find it simply baffling. I made not a single statement regarding my own belief, yet you seem to have decided you know not only what I believe but how and why as well! Further it seems you have found something considerably offensive in what I thought a simple explanation of fact. I especially don’t see where you’re getting this idea that I have no rationale behind my position and that I am arguing from emotion alone. I wasn’t arguing at all.
Further, you seem to have formed the impression that I am trying to argue against your beliefs and that I consider you a fool. Again, I was not arguing at all, but answering a question you had asked. If you are actually interested in hearing answers to that or any other questions you may have about atheism, I would be happy to provide them as best I am able; but I would ask that you refrain from such bizarre and insulting rants as that above.
August 17th, 2006 at at 1:55 pm
What happened to I AM? This is a long time without a post.
August 17th, 2006 at at 2:41 pm
Morgan-
Sorry to have assumed so many wrong things about you. It is part of my personality to try to understand why you say what you say, to help me respond better. I was right in assuming that you are an atheist, at least.
I don’t think the trilemma argument addresses the existence of God either. But you chose to reject Bob’s claim because there was no evidence for Bob’s claim, however there is a lot of evidence for the claims of Jesus about Himself, not the least of which is His Resurrection. You have examined that evidence and rejected it because there was a more convincing argument, or you have chosen to not confront that evidence or to not accept that evidence as legitimate; this is what I am after, because if you know of a convincing argument to confront and dismiss the evidence about Jesus’ claims about Himself then I am interested in hearing it. I came to Christ because the evidence led me there; I have remained in Christ in part because the evidence becomes only more compelling over time (although my faith has matured beyond a simple reliance on apologetic evidence). Jesus claimed to be the Truth, and if that is not the case then I’d like to know about it. You’d be helping me out by clarifying my own thinking.
Apologies for any insult, but it seems like I can’t get to the roots of why atheists believe what they believe without sharing what seems to be the case about them as a means of drawing them out about what they really think. I suppose that may be true of folks of all philosophical persuasions, but since there are both conscious atheists like yourself and practical athiests (like a lot of nominal Christians, as you probably know), I run into those who think like atheists much more often than those of any other persuasion in my life.
August 18th, 2006 at at 3:11 am
Morgan didn’t answer yet, so i’ll intercept
There is no evidence that has not been argued and refuted a thousand times. Especially when the evidence is written in the legendary fantasy novel “Bible”. It’s a good book, btw. You should try reading it. Nowhere near as good as LOTR, but that’s just my personal opinion.
If you’ve NEVER heard any of the arguments against those evidence then where the hell have you been? Go browse the internet for a week or so before coming back here kiddo. This place is too small for those kind of extended discussion
We don’t believe, we disbelieve irrational explanations. Read Voltaire, then maybe you’ll understand the basics.
A claim is not a proof.
The fact that you and i don’t know if something is true or not does not mean something is true.
The fact that MANY or ALMOST EVERYONE believes something is true does not mean something is true
August 18th, 2006 at at 3:58 pm
Drew,
I’ve been loving your participation! Keep it up. When I went to college (PSU), leaving the shackles of religion became so much easier! I was raised a serious catholic. I went to catholis grade school and high school. I went to college and in the dorms I met hindus, jehovahs, jews, arabs, baptists, mormons, and every shade of christian. And we stayed up all night talking and drinking and smoking and arguing. I heard all about the goofy things people believe all over the world and relized that believing in transubstatiation or virgin birth or resurrection, was just as weird as believing in reincarnation or voodoo or lucky rabbits feet. It was all just nonsense people fed themselves to feel better. Myself included.
At the same time I was learning a lot about chemistry, biology, and damn near every other ology.
The answer was obvious, to me anyway. Born-again atheist if you will, and i’ve never been so happy.
August 20th, 2006 at at 7:58 am
Big NEWS!!
I AM IS DEAD !!!
August 20th, 2006 at at 10:03 pm
May the FSM rest his post-weary soul.
But seriously, duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude.
August 20th, 2006 at at 10:04 pm
Ah, yes, I don’t use that alias anymore, apologise, old computer with it’s poor memory
August 21st, 2006 at at 6:42 am
Wow. You people have been busy in my absence. The exchange with Drew has been great. Since Morgan and Maresa have already put forward the entirety of what my argument would have been, I won’t add anything there.
Cadmus: I’ll think about a reading list. If I come up with anything compelling, I’ll post about it. It’s good to see one of my favorite Christian blogger still stopping by here.
Robert O’Brien: God and a dime would get you ten cents change. Try not to be such an asshole for absolutely no reason.
August 22nd, 2006 at at 1:55 pm
Drew,
When I went to college (PSU), leaving the shackles of religion became so much easier! I was raised a serious catholic. I went to catholis grade school and high school. I went to college and in the dorms I met hindus, jehovahs, jews, arabs, baptists, mormons, and every shade of christian. And we stayed up all night talking and drinking and smoking and arguing. I heard all about the goofy things people believe all over the world and relized that believing in transubstatiation or virgin birth or resurrection, was just as weird as believing in reincarnation or voodoo or lucky rabbits feet. It was all just nonsense people fed themselves to feel better. Myself included.
At the same time I was learning a lot about chemistry, biology, and damn near every other ology.
The answer was obvious, to me anyway. Born-again atheist if you will, and i’ve never been so happy.
Blade (clearly not dull!)-
Uh, at the risk of incurring your ire in addition to that of others, I don’t think that religion has any shackles that are not rooted in human ignorance, immaturity, and emotionalism, all of which are not confined to any religion, let alone Christianity, which is a relationship and not a religion. The follies that you probably think of as the “shackles” that you speak of are not unique to Catholicism or any other philosophy. The problem with religion is that the people who subscribe to them, all of them including the relgion of atheism, are fundamentally flawed and tend towards irrational conclusions and behavior- this characterizes the fringes of all devotee groups on the Earth, without any exceptions. Using such an idea against Christianity and not against all philosophies is hypocritical.
I think I had mentioned that I grew up Catholic. Not sure what to say about how you tracked so radically different from me in the same discussions and kinds of exposure to the marketplace of ideas. I think that the proof is not the issue, though. Not that there is any weakness in the support for Christianity, but that is not the main issue most of the time.
The period between my having the gospel explained to me and my acceptance of Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, during which my initial research into the validity of Christianity versus the claims of other philosophies took place, was about seven months (most of my freshman year). The research part was in the first month, and the remaining time (six out of the seven months) was primarily my process of asking questions and reconciling myself to what I was convinced in my head was true. I think the activities of the six-month portion of my own journey are more likely those that have not taken place in your life, the process of opening up your heart to look inside and recongnize the emptiness and insecurity there. If we got into an apologetc debate we would find that the difference between your thoughts about God and mine are emotional at their root, not intellectual. The proof is secondary to the openness to the proof.
Glad to hear you went to Penn State, though. I grew up for a while in Pennsylvania and have always been a Joe Paterno fan-
August 22nd, 2006 at at 2:42 pm
There is no evidence that has not been argued and refuted a thousand times. Especially when the evidence is written in the legendary fantasy novel “Bible”. It’s a good book, btw. You should try reading it. Nowhere near as good as LOTR, but that’s just my personal opinion.
If you’ve NEVER heard any of the arguments against those evidence then where the hell have you been? Go browse the internet for a week or so before coming back here kiddo. This place is too small for those kind of extended discussion
Come on now, I’ve been around the block a FEW times. What I have not heard, and what I was asking for here, is any arguments about the Trilemma line of reasoning. Jesus claims to be Lord, and we have only the option of judging him to be as He said (Lord), a Liar conscious that He was lying, or a Lunatic who did not know that He was lying but thought He was telling the truth. Is that the case or do we have other options?
Jesus also claimd to be God, so this line of reasoning does apply to the atheism debate.
We don’t believe, we disbelieve irrational explanations. Read Voltaire, then maybe you’ll understand the basics.
A claim is not a proof.
No, a claim is not proof. But a claim is evaluated properly on the basis of its validity, and proof is the major source of validity; ask any judge or police officer.
The claims of Christ carry with them an awful lot of proof, but see my comment to Dull Blade- the apologetic proof for Christ is not the real issue here. The state of your willingness to acknowledge the proof that is there, for example the contents of Strobel’s books that I mentioned- this is the issue. I can spend years going over all the claims made on every hokie internet site run by some pro- or anti-Christiain idiot and end up at the same place- contradictory claims that cannot both be true. You know that. Running around playing apologist is fun, claiming superior proof and belittling the claims or thoughts of others, but it has its place and that is not a big place.
Christianity is a relationship, not a religion, which means it is not a list of rules or do’s/don’ts (memo to Dull- this was the issue with Catholicism for me). If you want a relationship with God, you can have one; if you want a formula for coping with life, you can go to a lot of places and get that and eventually find one that works reasonably well for you. Jesus Christ doesn’t offer that, though. Voltaire does, at least his version. If that is what you want, then you’ll do much better with Voltaire. In your atheism, what is it that you want?
Generally, the life that people want is an easier one, a more fun one than the one that they have now; Jesus doesn’t promise that to His people. If you want a philosphy that makes you feel better about yourself and about life, then perhaps atheism is more suited to you. Not that that isn’t a fine goal, to feel better about oneself and about life, mind you. Christianity makes me beel better about myself, but only after I first admit that I am fallen before God and not able to achieve significance on my own efforts, sort of a downer before an upper. The upper is eternally permanent, though. Walking with God certainly isn’t easy and it isn’t a feel-good pill; if you are looking for either of those things then you are not in the state of mind to approach the God of the Bible. Are we talking about atheism or Christianity because we are comparing the strengths and weaknesses of philosophies or because we are seeking something to answer a deep need in our lives and wondering where to turn? Apologetics doesn’t fill the deep need, it only provides mental gratification. Knowing God personally, that’s where it’s at for me, the fulfillment of my need for value, direction, purpose, and significance. If I do not believe that there is a God outside myself, then I look to myself to make up the reasons for these things, and I know intuitively that the reasons I find are equally as useless as the reasons that everyone else must find within themselves who do not believe in God, and I know that our world simply cannot survive if we are all to invent our own significance, purpose, and moral compasses (what is fine for me may be evil to you, how are you to live with that if my “good” includes harming you?). Even the insistence on “the common good” or “contract law” as the source of moral guidance is an admission that we can think like we are our own Gods but actually can’t live that way (this demonstrates the futility of that thinking; it doesn’t apply in real life). I know intuitively that the world is not random in its origins or operation, and that all humans are not intended to make up our significance and beliefs as we go along; if you are not of that conviction, then clearly Christianity is not for you, and no amount of back-and-forth about the evidence for this or that is relevant.
How’s that for stream of consiousness?
August 28th, 2006 at at 9:17 pm
before you can ever understand who Jesus is, you must believe first then see…
blind people in the spirit that live in the physical world will never be able to comprehend the extent of his love and his power..because you are used to satisfying your eyes rather than your soul…
Do you see your soul? no you dont..
but you can neither see your pain when ur sad, but u feel it…
does that mean it is not there? of course not…
we all feel sadness, but no one has ever denied that it doesnt exist..
now we evangelical christians feel the holy spirit…just the lucky ones that get to have a one on one experience with the Holy Ghost….
just because u and some atheist refuse to feel it, it doesnt make it true.
in order to feel pain, you must understand what happiness is…
in order to know who Jesus is, you must understand what passion and Love is.
August 28th, 2006 at at 9:33 pm
If your child committed something so awful that will keep him away from you for the rest of his/her life , what would you do?
lets say your child committed murder and must spend the rest of his life in prison away from you…
Now. lets say prison rapresented ur stubborness, ur insolence, ur anger; the one keeping u from being a real sincere person, denying you to be happy and taking your freedom of laughing with joy and being a wonderful person..
Jesus represents your parent…
who took your blame so you would not go to prison and stay away from HIM for eternity…
He decided to take ur blame and guilt and shame so you can be with Him for the rest of your life and enjoy freedom and happiness…
God never wanted u to suffer or be sad…He wants you to have everything that is good and you desire in your heart according to His will…
I have committed my life to Him from the day I was born, and there is no moment in my life i regret because He took care of me and ordered all my steps…because he takes care of me and because i live my life in His ends, my paths are ordered..
Give your life to Jesus and you will never regret that day because He will keep you from all evil and sadness. If you have been searching for something all your life, and always looking for a temporary high to keep you happy…it won’t last…
the answer is Jesus…He will fufill you and make you pure…
you can start over and all your sins will be forgiving and washed in His precious blood…
which redeems everything and makes old things new.
Be restored…Return to innocence…
Call unto the name of Jesus and say:
Lord forgive me, I have been a sinner.
Please enter into my heart and redeem me. make me new and shape me into your image.
Become the King of my Heart.
On This Day I accept you as my Saviour and Christ.
Amen.
Congrats!~you are a born again Christian!
August 28th, 2006 at at 9:55 pm
if u dont believe there is God and Jesus, why do you publish a website and put so much effort in proven something that “doesnt exist”?
if it doesnt exist to you, why try to prove it|?
my guess is that u know there is God, u r just in denial..
because u have been hurt in the past..
But no matter how far u will turn from God, God is ready to welcome you.