The Trades: Judging the Case For Christ

My wife Megan runs a Facebook group in which atheists and Christians come together to read the Bible from the beginning of Genesis all the way to the end of Revelations. One of the religious members of that group suggested that everyone should watch the movie version of Lee Strobel’s apologetic work “The Case for Christ.”  I’d personally already read the book version during my Christian school days (along with other apologetics like Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis), but we agreed to watch the movie anyway in the interest of helping to foster a dialog and get Christians and atheists discussing their beliefs or lack of beliefs.  (As a side note, Megan also posted a blog about Lee Strobel last year that can be found here.)

For anyone who would like to see the video before reading my blog, it’s currently available for instant streaming through Netflix, or you can probably pick up a copy of the book or video version at your local library.  You can also check out Strobel’s website here for additional information on his beliefs and claims.

Strobel’s claim to fame in the apologetic community is that he was a journalist for many years, and he frequently states he used his journalism skills to perform an impartial and open minded study of the Bible to determine if Jesus was a real historical figure, and if he really was a divine entity.  According to Strobel, he was either an atheist or an agnostic, and decided to study Christianity after his wife converted to see if its claims could be verified.

After conducting this lengthy study, Lee Strobel claims he got out a legal pad and drew a line down the middle. On one side he wrote “Evidence For” and on the other side he wrote “Evidence Against.” He stated that he simply had to believe in Jesus, as the “Evidence For” column far outweighed the “Evidence Against” column. 

What he fails to mention in this story is that he only interviewed people on one side of the debate, and only looked at pro-Christian information.

Consider for a moment if I drew a line down a legal pad and on one side wrote “Reasons why Taco Bell is the best.” Then on the other side I write “Reasons why Taco Bell is not the best.”  Now let’s say to compile the evidence for this list I only interviewed Taco Bell executives. I never interview anyone from Arby’s or Sonic or Burger King or any other restaurant that may disagree with the phrase “Taco Bell is the best.” 

Do you see why this doesn’t work?

For all his claims of being on an “investigative journey,” Strobel never once interviews anyone from the opposing side.  That’s not only dishonest, it also makes the whole “investigation” completely pointless. For those who have seen this video and have used it to try to convince people that Christianity is true, I recommend that they go back and watch it again.  If you have the book version of “Case for Christ,” please pull it out now and flip through it.  Look for the interview Strobel conducted with a scholar who does not believe that Jesus was a real historical figure who performed miracles.  Look for the interview with the prominent atheist who has a book published or some other credential that would make the person relevant to the debate.  You can stop looking now, because these interviews don’t exist.  Strobel never once interviewed a single person on the opposing side of the issue.

He makes a point of asking everyone to be open minded and critically examine the evidence, no matter where it leads, but he himself was completely unwilling to do so in this video.  The only time nonbelievers appear is for 15 to 30 second clips of random people on the street talking about what they think of Jesus.

As the movie progresses, it becomes unfortunately clear that Strobel doesn’t actually know what the word “witness” or phrase “eyewitness testimony” actually mean.  He repeatedly claims that there were many eyewitness testimonies (that is, first hand accounts) of the life and resurrection of Jesus.  This just simply isn’t the case.  The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all written literally decades after the events they describe. 

Consider whatever you did last night. Now consider if someone decided to write about that night forty to seventy years later and claim to know exactly what you did or said in detail.  See the problem here?  The bizarre part is that Strobel seems to be aware of this fact, but it doesn’t bother him.  He even says that “only being one generation removed is still good eyewitness testimony.”  I’m sorry Lee, but that’s just simply not the case.  Being an entire generation removed no longer qualifies as “eyewitness,” and it certainly isn’t “good testimony.”

Luke wasn’t even actually there to witness the events described in his gospel, so his accounts must be considered second hand even if you believe the Bible is entirely literally true. The problem is further compounded when one considers that it’s commonly accepted among scholars that Matthew, Mark, and John weren’t actually written by the apostles bearing those names.  The subject of the composition of the gospels is a rather complex one, with many different sources to be considered, but I would urge anyone wanting further information to simply perform a google search for a phrase like “gospel of Matthew” or even “Authors of the gospels” and dive in headfirst.

Strobel is also aware of the contradictions present between the four gospels, as many of them explain events quite differently or leave out important pieces of information present in the other ones. To explain this, Strobel says that we should expect differences in eyewitness testimonies (again, the gospels cannot in any way be considered “eyewitness testimonies”) and that courts of law suspect that witnesses are colluding together if their stories *don’t* differ in some way.

The problem with this is that we aren’t dealing with minor discrepancies of normal, everyday things that might show up at a trial.  The issue isn’t something minor like whether Jesus’ robe was white or brown.  The issue is with major differences.  For example, the gospel of John doesn’t even mention the virgin birth or Jesus being baptized.  Think about that for a moment.  The person who wrote the gospel of John either didn’t think it was worth mentioning that Jesus was born of a virgin, or he wasn’t even aware that people held this belief. That’s pretty much a deal breaker right there, and not some minor discrepancy that one would expect between different witness testimonies.  When dealing with outlandish supernatural claims, a higher standard for evidence is simply required.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

From there, Strobel and his interviewees go on to make a common mistake from theists – trying to use the Bible to prove the Bible.  The people he interviews talk about how 1st Corinthians 15:3-8 claims that 500 people personally saw the resurrected Jesus.

To address this “evidence,” I’ll ask that the Christians consider how they would feel if someone used this exact same tactic to try to “prove” another religion or the claims of another book.  Say, for the sake of argument, that I believed Middle-Earth was real, and the Lord of the Rings books are descriptions of real events.  Pretend that I tell you I believe in Gandalf, and that he really did arrive with an army to save the defenders of Helm’s Deep in “The Two Towers.”  As a rational, reasonable person, I would hope you’d say “I don’t believe you, prove it. Show me eyewitness.”

In response, I’d say, “Look right here in my book The Two Towers, it says that Gandalf told them he would arrive if they looked to the east at the light of the fifth day – and behold, he appeared!  Hundreds of people at Helm’s Deep saw him! I know it’s true because my book says its true! Those people are eyewitnesses!”

Do you see the problem here?  I can’t use The Two Towers to prove the events in The Two Towers actually happened.  Likewise, saying that the Bible says 500 people saw a resurrected Jesus is not proof that 500 people actually saw a resurrected Jesus, and it certainly can’t be considered “eyewitness testimony.” You can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible any more than I can use The Two Towers to prove The Two Towers.

Later, Strobel has to admit that much of the Bible was originally passed down as oral tradition for generations before being written (and that’s not even taking into account the fact that we are dealing with copies of copies of copies of copies of copies in modern day Bibles).  He tries to defend the Bible’s authenticity by saying that oral tradition can easily be passed down for generations without changing.

To answer this claim, I’ll simply ask the reader to play a round of the game of “Gossip.”  For anyone who isn’t familiar with the game, all you do is get 15 or 20 people in a circle.  Have one person whisper a phrase into the next person’s ear.  Have that person whisper the phrase into the next person’s ear, and so on, until it gets back to the original person.  Guess what?  The phrase won’t be even remotely similar to what it was originally.  Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble here.

As his coup-de-grace, Strobel asks the question, “But why would they lie?  Why would the people who wrote the Bible be willing to die for their beliefs in they weren’t true?”

First off, he’s shot himself in the foot just by asking the question.  If martyrdom proves a religion is true, then Islam and Judaism and a horde of other religions are also true.  Christianity is most certainly not unique in that it has members who have died for their beliefs.  There are martyrs of many religions.  Should I ask why those people would die for something they knew was a lie?  Religion makes it clear that human beings are willing to die in order to maintain a delusion, and that believing something is true does not actually make it true. 

Religion is dangerous in that regard, as it teaches people to ignore the one life they really have in favor of a fictional afterlife that they can’t even prove actually exists.  It’s this willingness to die for religious beliefs that leads to suicide bombers and Christians who shoot abortion doctors and religious parents who let their children die because they believe prayer works better than medicine.

Strobel also uses the tactic known as the “argument form prophecy,” which claims that the Bible must be true because Jesus in the New Testament fulfills the prophecies in the Old Testament.  All one has to do to counter this argument is point out that not only was the New Testament written long after the Old Testament, but that the people who wrote the New Testament were intimately familiar with the Old Testament.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened there.  How hard is it to make prophecy fit if I am intimately familiar with the prophecies and am writing the next book?

I’ll also again ask Christians to consider if they would accept similar claims from other religions.  Should we take fulfilled prophecies from the Koran as proof that Islam is true?  Should we take the foreshadowing in The Hobbit that is later fulfilled in the Lord of the Rings as proof that Middle-Earth is real?

To finish off my look at the Case for Christ, I’d like to mention an off-hand comment Strobel made about how he realized he needed “more faith to maintain atheism” than he needed to become a Christian. It always baffles me when Christians uses this phrase, because it’s clear they haven’t thought through the implications of what they are saying.  Is this phrase meant to be an insult, or a compliment?

By saying this, does the Christian mean that having more faith than a Christian is a negative thing?  Are they saying that having faith in something without evidence is bad?  If so, it is the Christian’s duty to immediately stop having faith in zombie Jesus or his talking snake nemesis.  On the opposite side, is the Christian trying to say that having more faith than a Christian is a good thing?  If so, then what was the point in making the statement at all?  It’s a self-defeating argument, and one that makes the arguer look rather foolish in the process.

For anyone who would like to see what others had to say about the Case For Christ, you can find other reviews here and here.

Common Religious Tactics: The Personal Testimony

During my discussions with the religious, I’ve found that there is a major disconnect between what the theist will accept as valid evidence and what the theist expects others to accept as valid evidence.  While a Christian theist has no problem proclaiming that atheists will see the truth of God’s glory and the reality of hell when they die, they aren’t in any way persuaded by a similar argument that they will see the truth of Valhalla’s existence when they pass away without knowing a glorious death on the field of battle.

One of the areas where this disconnect comes most strongly into play is that arguing tactic known as the “personal testimony.”  Anyone who has been directly involved with Christianity (of absolutely any denomination or creed) has likely heard many personal testimonies describing why an individual believes in a talking snake and a big invisible man in the sky.  Perhaps they heard a voice, or had a prayer answered, or got through a tough time due to the help of religious devotion, or so on.

For those not familiar with this particular phenomena, here is the definition of a “personal testimony” from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (more commonly known as the Mormons):

“A testimony is knowing something is true through revelation from the Holy Ghost.”

While Christians of other denominations may consider Mormonism to be a cult, it is almost without doubt that they would agree with the above statement if they didn’t know it came from the LDS church. The problem with the personal testimony as an argument for theism is clearly highlighted by the differences between Mormons and absolutely any other denomination of Christianity, from Catholics to Baptists to Pentecostals to Charismatics to Seventh Day Adventists. 

The problem is this: absolutely no one can agree on what the Holy Ghost is truly saying.  Pentecostals believe the Holy Ghost is saying something completely different than what Catholics think its saying.  Mormons think it says something very different from what Baptists think it has said.  The kicker here is that all of these groups are equally convinced that they alone are aware of what the Holy Ghost has really revealed, while simultaneously believing that all the other groups are misled in some way.  None of them ever consider that the rest of these groups feel the same way about them.

To an outside, unbiased observer it is clear that “the Holy Ghost” is nothing more than any given person’s own thoughts and personal feelings.  How else does one explain that one denomination allows priests to marry while another does not, or how one denomination feels that homosexuality is an abomination worthy of hellfire while another disagrees completely?  How else does one explain that Pentecostals fervently believe that baptism and speaking in tongues are required for salvation, while evangelical Christians think it requires nothing more than a telepathic affirmation of your allegiance to Jesus?  All of these completely opposing beliefs are also all drawn from reading the exact same book. Wouldn’t an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God make it more clear what He really required to be saved from an eternity of torture in hell?

While arguing with the religious, it’s critical that the non-believer hold the believer to the same standard as they would hold anyone else.  At the very least, a Christian engaged in debate with an atheist should be able to agree that the same standard of evidence and proof be held by both parties.  If one person in the discussion would refuse to accept a particular argument as valid, it should be agreed that the other party can also refuse to accept that particular argument as valid.

To explain what I mean, let’s take a look at a few personal testimonies I’ve received while debating with the religious.  This first testimony found below is from a person we’ll refer to as “Mr. Habit.” While explaining to my wife why he believed in Christianity and why he felt his supernatural beliefs were more real than those of any other religion, “Mr. Habit” had this to say:

Our delusions are not delusions as you suppose. Us Christians have a sure Rock as a foundation to Hold us at peace when All hell Has Broken Loose. But I challenge you, when Your Job Has no more demand for You, and YOur Friends All Abandon You, And Your Love Ones Abort YOu, We will see if Science is able to Hold on to you...LOL!

But Jesus is the Truth the Way and the Life! For He died And came back to Life. I know because I tried to Live by His Standards and MY Death Was Turned into Life.

My feining Drug Addictions, My unnatural Masturbation Habits which I did so frequently that my penis started to Sting and My Body began to age like a 40 year old and I'm only 25, been masturbating since thirteen, and finally seen it's bad effects and started to quit. Masturbation speeds up the Aging Process. Look at the male Black widow.! When it ejaculates, it takes up so much energy that He dies after Ejaculating.

My Lust habits were so bad that when I would have sex with women of whom i didn't even know their first name several times....

My Bitterness was so bad that I told My OWN Mother that I wish I had never been born, And I wish that I myself had never been Made.

My thoughts Of Suicide were so Bad that I Said to myself... That I might as well Search and Find out if God is REAL or Not Before I give my Life Up For Nothing!

But HOW Could Science Save Me from my bitterness, or Drug Habits, or Fornication Lusts, and My Anger and RAge At Creation?

But O' When I searched OUt Jesus, to get baptized in HIs name to See if He was REal, I took His Word for what It was and I was sorry for all of My sins, and asked him to search my heart , and if there be anything unclean that He would not approve, to take it out that I might Live Pleasing to His Sight! All I wanted to do was be a Good Child to My Mother Growing UP, but when I looked at the World and Our Government and Saw HOw Evil Everything was Governed, I felt That The World was unfair and I decided to Give my life away to Riotous Living.

Until I called out for Jesus and He saved Me!

1) NOw I have Glorious Relationship with my mother!

2) I have become the C.E.O. of my own Non-Profit Organization and am as graceful and meek as a servant!

3) And I no longer snort drugs, nor have sex premaritally, and no longer have thoughts of suicide but have rather thoughts of giving life to those who didn't have a fair chance like me.

See that's What God does, He turns your Sorrow into Rejoicing!

YOur Blame and Shame into fame.

Your Death into life.

Leaving Everything to Follow HIs Word( Christ's Commands) is A way to find Him! Seek and ye shall find. KNock and it shall be openned. As and it shall be given.

First off, I want to point out that, as always, I haven’t changed a single letter of what this Christian wrote. All the misspellings and punctuation errors are original text that hasn’t been altered in any way. We’ll set aside all the absurdities and the bizarre views on masturbation (black widows die from masturbation according to this person?!?), as Megan has already dealt with the subject extensively in her blog at this location.

It should also be noted before moving on that “Mr. Habit” seems to think reality is subjective, as he implied that Christianity would suddenly become more real for me if my friends and family abandoned me.  For the record: something either is real or it isn’t.  Zeus doesn’t become any more or less real just because events in my life go either well or poorly.

Before explaining in detail why I don’t accept the personal testimony of “Mr. Habit” as proof of Christianity's claims, let’s take a look at another Christian testimony I received online some months back.  This one is from a previous conversation on this blog (available here) with an individual I’ll refer to only as “DM.” Here’s the personal testimony from this person:

This is the result of the Bible you say was written by humans. A dictionary could not have done this: (a brief history to the present)

Because of spending time with people raised in families who knew not God, I was smoking by the age of seven. At nine I started drinking, started smoking pot at 10 and playing drums in a heavy metal band for nine years starting also at age 10. During that time I made $25. 57 an hour at the age of 18-19. I drove a 72, SS Chevelle, had beautiful blondish/brown hair going down to the middle of my back, had a stunning girlfriend, the popularity of a band member, and all the drugs and extra women I wanted. The years that I was knowingly apart from God were the most irresponsible, empty, misguided and ill-directed years of my life. When at 19 years old I saw a vision of destruction while intensely inebriated, my life was about to radically change. A voice relentlessly called me to pick up and read the Bible. I finally listened, and within a month I was baptized. I read the Bible from six to eight hours a day for the first year of being a Christian. I was trained as a missionary and called to be a pastor after only four years of accepting to follow God. Since then I have seen more miracles and have had a far better life than ever I could have imagined possible. Why? Because I committed my self to the God in Bible study, prayer, and witnessing. Since becoming a Christian, I’ve seen many lives changed from being like mine to being like Christ’s in radical ways. These lives are an example of multiple miracles each. Beyond the changed lives, I’ve seen Sheri take a CT Scan that showed a major heart attach which the doctors said must have been a mechanical error because of the further tests that were done the next day after I had prayed for the Lord to give her a new heart. Larry’s granddaughter was only two years old with a tumor inside of her head the size of a man’s fist. After praying on our knees together, Larry’s granddaughter was tumor-less while the doctors had no explanation. What about a man named David? He fell many feet from a rock and exploded his ankle. When going in for an x-ray, the results showed that he needed to be immobilized in that leg and would need a cast after the swelling went down. After praying about it, the very next day he woke up, got out of the bed and put on his clothes. He went to work and saw the doctor come in, a non-Christian doctor, which was amazed at his standing and mobility. What about when I was working and heard a mental voice give me an address? I wrote it down, told the boss about it, a Christian, and she said that I should write a letter to it. I knew that it must be to my girlfriend’s mother, who lived on Jajoba road, so I wrote and sent it. A week or two later the response came back with an exasperating note that said, something like, “Thank you sooo much for your letter DM. I had been praying, and that letter was my answer!” Time would fail us both if I were to recall all the times I needed money, clothes, food, and the basic other needs of life while a missionary. While without pay for a year and a half with my family, God sent ample provisions for myself, my incredible family, and enough to share with others. Now, my life has been so changed as to have a peaceful, loving, happy home with my wife and two amazing children.

My testimony is living proof that there is Divine power in the Bible that works to do what it says it will.

I challenge all of you to use the Bible for the next year to find what you can to prove that God is who you say He is, and you will not only see a Holy and Living God, but an angry devil. Open that Word and give it a fair chance, and your lives too will be changed.

Again, I want to stress that I haven’t altered a single letter or changed the formatting of this text in any way.  The personal testimony you’ve read above has been delivered in exactly the same way it was first presented to me during an online conversation.

I’ve posted the video below in several of my blogs, and it seems it’s necessary to do so again.  It’s important for the religious to understand that personal anecdotes are not proof, as anyone can claim anything and I would have no way of verifying the information.  It would be just as easy for me to claim that an invisible giant fuzzy pickle named Bob cured a tumor as it was for the individual above to claim the Christian God cured a tumor – and both claims have absolutely no evidence to back them up. 

It’s always interesting how the claims of these personal testimonies don’t seem to have any corroborating evidence.  For instance, the person who gave the testimony above was both unwilling and unable to provide a link to a news story from a legitimate news source where a doctor discussed any of these “miracles” occurring.  I know that if I had a serious ailment miraculously cured through supernatural means, I’d have copies of my medical records created immediately and I’d make them available for the whole world to see so that they too could benefit from supernatural healing.

As a side note on the subject of faith healing, you can check out the video of our own trip to Portland to test the claims of faith healers here. I also have a blog discussing a documentary on faith healing titled "The Finger of God" that can be found at this location.



After having read both testimonies, are you seeing a trend here?  Apparently Christians can’t stay off the drugs or keep themselves from cheating on their girlfriends without a belief in a big invisible man in the sky, his zombie son, or his talking snake nemesis.

This all very odd, considering my own atheist version of a “personal testimony.”  I’m an atheist, and I don’t believe in Jesus or Yahweh or Zeus or Thor or Poseidon or Hecate or Allah or Cthulhu or any other deity.  Yet despite this oh-so-damning fact, I am not a drug abuser.  I am not involved in gang violence.  I’m not a thief.  I haven’t been randomly aged to 40 despite my masturbation habits.  I am a married, monogamous, heterosexual man who has never even once cheated on his spouse.  I am a productive member of society with an amazing job. 

What all these testimonies have led me to this is conclusion: a belief in the supernatural is simply not required to be a good person or to keep yourself off the drugs.

Whenever I’ve brought this point up to the religious in my discussions, both online and offline, I’ve always been presented with a question in response.   Christians frequently bring up this objection to give their personal beliefs credence. They will simply ask, “But why would they lie?”

This is a common Christian tactic that is presented in many different settings.  Christians are just as likely to bring up this idea while talking about the gospels of the New Testament as they are to bring it up while explaining modern personal testimonies. 

First of all, it’s quite easy to see why someone would either purposefully lie about outlandish claims or accidentally continue to spread false information due to ignorance of the subject.  Religion gives people things they can’t actually have.  By believing in Christianity, an individual gets to believe that they will live forever in paradise, while the people they don’t like will be punished for all eternity.  It lets people believe that the creator of the universe is looking out for them specifically.  It’s not hard to realize why someone would lie about a personal testimony.

While it’s important to answer the question of “why would they lie?” it’s even more important to immediately turn the question around and post the same query to the Christian.  If the very question of “why would they lie?” is meant to be evidence of a claim’s truth or falsehood, then that question proves the personal testimonies of all people of opposing religions as well.

If the theist is using an argument they absolutely would not accept in any way from members of opposing religions, then the atheist shouldn’t have to accept it from a Christian either.

Consider for a moment if a Christian provided a personal testimony from a friend who had given up a cocaine addiction through belief in Jesus.  When this testimony is met with skepticism, the Christian asks “But why would my friend lie about this?”  Now consider for a moment if I responded to that question with another question: “Why would a Wiccan lie?”

Yes, that’s right, I’ve heard personal testimonies from Wiccans as well as Christians.  In fact, I personally know a Wiccan who was a Sunday school teacher for many years and later converted from Christianity to Wicca because the Christian religion offered her no peace, while Wicca gave her a peace beyond understanding. 

 If this Wiccan woman provided her personal testimony to a Christian, would that Christian in any way be moved to convert to Wicca?  Of course not!  While Christians expect their personal testimonies to convert others, they never consider that people of opposing religions might have equally compelling testimonies.  I’ve heard Wiccans make claims of supernatural healing through casting spells that are on par with any claim of supernatural healing from a Christian due to prayer.

The two testimonies I presented earlier are not by any means the only testimonies I have heard from Christians.  While interviewing a series of Christian heavy metal bands for an article on religion’s role in music (available to be read here) I was sent the following testimony by a musician who goes by the name “Fire” from the Polish black metal band Elgibbor:

I came to a time in my life when I felt the lowest. I was doing drugs and felt like life had no meaning. God used that time to open my eyes through some help of a friend. He showed me that He was more than just religion. God still helps me exist in this cruel world. Sure I have problems just like everyone does, but with God it makes life so much easier.

Now let’s take all these personal testimonies from Christian folks, and let’s compare them to the personal testimony of actress Kirstie Alley, who (much like Mr. Habit, DM, and Fire) claims that her religion got her off drugs (cocaine to be specific).  The kicker?  She’s talking about Scientology, not Christianity, in the following quote:

“This work gives me the opportunity to help people in the fight against drugs, which were ruining my life a dozen years ago. This branch of Narconon especially helps Native Americans in the area. Indians have a big problem with alcohol and drugs. I grew up with an admiration for their culture and was sensitive to their problems.

"Most of the people I know--literally--have been through drug rehabs two or three times. The difference is that this program stops the revolving-door effect. For me it means being drug-free and learning to function in life.

"This program salvaged my life and began my acting career. When I was an interior designer in Wichita I was a druggie and life didn't go well. I'd call in sick a lot, making excuses just so I could do coke.

"When I came to Los Angeles in 1979 I went to the detox center at Narconon. It was like night and day once I had completed the program. I've never had the desire to do drugs since. When I was straight, I had the courage and energy to try to become an actress. I owe my career to my will to stop using."

Neither “Mr. Habit” nor “DM” nor “Fire” can claim fame or an acting career because of their personal testimonies.  Should we take the words of Scientologist Kirstie Alley over the words of these Christians?

But it doesn’t end there.  Consider the personal testimony below found on this site, which also explains a man giving up drugs due to God.  Only this God is Allah, and this man’s religion is Islam, not Christianity.

My life before was bad. I had no direction in life. I was wasting my life away by dropping out of school in the 11th grade. I would hang out in the streets with my friends "partying", getting high, drinking and selling marijuana. Most of my friends were gang members. I myself was never in a gang. I knew most of them before they turned bad, so it was not a problem. I slowly began to use harder drugs. I had dreams, but they seemed too far away for me to make them reality. The more I became depressed, the more I turned to drugs as a temporary escape.

One day a friend of mine told me that he knew where to get some good marijuana. I agreed to go check it out. We arrived and went inside this apartment. There were a couple of people inside. We sat around and talked for a while and sampled the weed. My friend and I bought some and were getting ready to leave when my friend said one of the guys there invited us to his apartment to give him a book.

We left for this guy's apartment. When we got there, he gave my friend a book and asked him to read it, and said that it might help him out with his problems in life. On the way home I asked my friend to show me the book that the guy gave him. It was the Qur'an (Koran).

I had never in my life heard of The Holy Qur'an. I began to briefly read some pages. While I was reading I knew that what I was reading was true. It was like a slap in the face, a wake up call. The Qur'an is so clear and easy to understand. I was really impressed and wanted to know more about Islam and Muslims.

The strangest thing is that I was not looking for a new religion. I used to laugh at people that went to church, and sometimes said that there was no God, although deep down I knew there was. I decided to go to the library a couple of days later and check out the Qur'an. I began to read it and study it. I learned about Prophet Muhhamed (Peace be upon him) and the true story of Jesus son of Mary (Peace be upon him).

If a Christian wouldn’t accept the above personal testimony as proof of the existence of Allah and the truth of Islam, then they simply can’t expect anyone else to accept their personal testimonies as proof of the existence of Yawheh and the truth of Christianity.

Common Religious Tactics: Idiocy, Morals, Monkeys, and Everything

Over the last year or so both Megan and I have been involved in dozens of direct debates, both online and in person, with theists of various stripes and individuals who believe in supernatural events but don’t adhere to a specific religion.  In addition to our own discussions, we also frequently watch videos or read transcriptions of other debates on the subject to remain informed on the various arguments and tactics used by both sides.

While watching a video this morning we came across a condensed version of some of the most frequent arguments we see from theists.  In the clip, the religious individual brought up four main points in rapid succession, while trying to prevent the opposing side from being able to respond to any of them.  Since we’ve seen these same arguments, in one form or another, in many of our discussions with the religious I’ll explain how I respond to them.

Broken down, the objections to atheism were as follows:

1. Atheism is idiocy, because the existence of God is self-evident.

2. Where do your morals come from if you don’t believe in God?

3. Why are there still monkeys around if we evolved from monkeys?

4. How do you explain the existence of the universe if God isn’t real?

When dealing with a barrage of opposition of this nature, frequently delivered all at once, it’s important to take a step back and address each issue on its own.  During debates with the religious, it’s entirely too easy to let the discussion drift between issues quickly without anything being covered in adequate detail, which gives the religious debater the upper hand.  Religious belief of any nature thrives on jumping to conclusions without closely examining the evidence, or even outright ignoring evidence that is readily available and contradics currently held views. With a discussion of this nature, it’s critical to calmly and rationally delve into each objection singly and try to get the opposition to actually think about the answers to these questions, instead of just letting them continue to believe that the very questions themselves somehow prove a point.

Before moving on to dealing with the four issues themselves, at least some time should be taken to clarify what exactly is meant by the term “atheist.”  I’ve had discussions with religious folk who literally believe that atheism somehow equates to active devil worship, despite the fact that atheists don’t believe in the Christian devil.  Other than clearing up misconceptions, explaining the meaning of the term atheism gives you a chance to establish common ground with the theist. 

For example, as an atheist I don’t believe in anything supernatural or in the multitude of gods and goddesses described by mankind throughout our history.  I don’t believe in magic powers or unicorns or fairies or Zeus or Thor or Jehovah or Allah.  While a Christian may completely disagree with me about the existence of Jehovah, most of them are willing to admit that Zeus isn’t real and is nothing more than a fairy tale.  Creating that common ground gives the atheist a better place to argue from and a better way to frame arguments from a perspective both parties can agree on.  Many theists are willing to admit that it would be a nonsensical practice to offer sacrifices to Zeus in hopes of staving off his lightning bolt wrath.  Likewise, I find it equally absurd to think that I need to telepathically affirm my allegiance to the sacrificial lamb/zombie son of Jehovah to avoid an eternity of hellfire and torment.

As a final issue before delving into the issues themselves, it is critical that the burden of proof be discussed with the arguing theist.  When a theist asks a question such as “If God isn’t real then where did the universe come from?” they are working from a worldview where atheists have to disprove the existence of their deity.  This clearly isn’t the case, however, because the burden of proof requires that the person claiming something exists must prove that thing’s existence.  The person hearing the claim isn’t required to disprove the claim.

Consider if we ignored the burden of proof, as so many Christians do, and we worked off the assumption that all beliefs are correct until proven wrong.  This would mean that all Christians would need to disprove the existence of Allah, and conclusively prove that Islam is not the one true religion, before being able to dismiss Islam’s claims.

One of the easiest ways to illustrate this point is to explain an absurd supernatural belief that has no evidence to back it up, and ask the theist to disprove it.  A favorite example of mine is the giant fuzzy pickle named Bob.  Say that I believed the universe was created by a giant fuzzy pickle named Bob, and that Bob’s nemesis (an invisible purple elephant named Tim) created Christianity to lure people away from Bob’s truth.  Christians absolutely can’t prove my belief wrong and conclusively disprove the existence of Bob (to do so would require knowing literally everything in the universe, as Bob may be hiding at the center of reality and actively obscuring himself from human detection). 

I could even say things  like, “But if Tim doesn’t exist, then how do you explain the existence of Christianity?  The very fact that you believe Christianity proves that Tim exists and that he’s lured you away from the truth.  I pray that one day your eyes are opened before it’s too late.” But just because a Christian can’t disprove my claim, doesn’t mean they have to accept it as a valid possibility.  The burden of proof falls on me to clearly demonstrate Bob’s reality – the burden of proof does not fall on the Christian to disprove Bob’s reality.

1. Atheism is idiocy, as God’s existence is clearly self-evident

The first point brought up by the theist in this particular discussion was that all atheists are idiots, because it’s obvious to anyone with a brain that God must be real.  Laying the framework for a common ground is the best way to approach this objection and show how poorly thought out this point really is.  The person making this claim very likely doesn’t believe in Zeus or Mithras, and yet both of those deities were once widely believed in and worshipped with the same fervor that a Christian believes in and worships Jesus.  Clearly the existence of Zeus isn’t self-evident, which means the theist using this tactic needs to explain in great detail how they feel their deity’s  existence is any more believable than the existence of Zeus or any other man made deity. The burden of proof is the killing blow here.  Its one thing for someone to say God’s existence is self-evident.  It’s quite another to provide the credible, verifiable evidence to back up that claim.  An all-powerful God who is omnipresent (meaning he is everywhere at once) should be able to easily appear and prove his own existence, and yet you’ll note this has never once verifiably happened.

As our understanding of the natural world grows, our need for a God to explain mysteries continues to diminish.  Earlier in our history, human beings attempted to appease various gods with prayers and sacrifices in order to ensure good weather for their crops.  Now that our understanding of weather patterns and atmospheric conditions has advanced through the use of the scientific method, we can predict with a great deal of accuracy what the weather will be like in any given region.  As our understanding of weather grows, our need for gods who influence the weather diminishes.

2. Where does your morality come from if you don’t believe in my God?

By asking this question, the theist exposes his or her belief that atheists (or even people who believe in a different deity) must be completely immoral.  In one discussion I had with the Christian we’ll call “DD” (You can find a different discussion I had with “DD” here), he informed me that if he was an atheist there would be nothing wrong with him murdering my entire family, as there would be no God to declare such an action immoral.  That sort of statement, which is used frequently by Christians trying to cite morality as a proof of God’s existence, shows that religion doesn’t actually account for our morals.  How can one be considered a moral person if his first response would be to go on a murder spree if he discovered God wasn’t real?

Before explaining how atheists can have morals and where the atheist’s morality comes from, it should be noted that belief in the Christian deity, or any deity at all, does not somehow bestow moral values. Take, for instance, those parents who have allowed sick children to die by refusing to use medicine and instead deciding to rely solely on the “healing power” of prayer.  I would hope that even theists can agree that killing children through neglect is not a moral behavior, and yet that behavior is explicitly created by belief in God.  (As a side note, be sure to take a look at the video clip of us taking a trip to Portland to test the claims of Christians that prayer can heal diabetes) An atheist would never pick a magical cure over chemotherapy for a child with cancer, or beseech aid from invisible forces instead of getting a diabetic child insulin, but a theist very well may (and in fact have in all too many cases).

The many atrocities caused by religion aren’t a secret by any stretch of the imagination, and literally thousands of examples can be brought up if one bothers to discuss them long enough.  Holy war, terrorism, Christians who bomb abortion clinics and shoot doctors, the Pope’s claim that condoms worsen AIDS and that people in Africa therefore shouldn’t use condoms, child abuse and the direct protection of child molesters, the murder of homosexuals, slavery, stoning women to death for nearly any slight imaginable, and many more completely immoral actions are all caused directly or fostered in a supporting atmosphere by religious belief.

I am an atheist, and I consider myself to be a moral human being.  I don’t rape, murder, steal, destroy property, or attempt to enact legislation preventing people I don’t like from getting married.  But how can I possibly stop myself from doing all these things if I don’t believe in an all-powerful outside force that decides what is morally right and what is morally wrong?

Simple: I follow the golden rule.  I don’t believe any god, be it Jesus or Zeus or any other deity, has a cosmic tally board and is watching to see who is following the rules and who is breaking them. I don’t believe that deity has decided for me what is cosmically right and what is cosmically wrong. People decide on their own, both singly and together as societies, which actions are morally acceptable and which are not.  As an atheist, I don’t require the threat of hell or the dangled reward of heaven to be a good person and prevent myself from hurting others.

At this point the theist is likely to ask something along the lines of: “Why bother being good then if there’s no punishment or reward?”  First off, this very question shows how bizarre the mindset of religious folks really is.  Who has the superior morality – the person who abstains from murder without any threat of punishment or reward, or the person who abstains from murder only *because* of the threat of punishment or reward?  There is nothing inherently moral about giving to charity or being a decent person if the only reason one does these things is to appease a cosmic dictator or ensure a better spot in heaven.

As to why I specifically choose to behave in a moral manner without threat of punishment or promise of eternal reward, the answer is again simple: it is in my best interest to do so.  I don’t want to be stolen from, so I don’t steal.  I don’t want to be murdered, so I don’t murder.  By abiding by the laws of society and my internal moral compass, I help to foster a world in which it is less likely that unpleasant things will happen to me.  Likewise, I help to foster a world that will be safe for my future children.  Belief in God simply is not required for anyone to have moral values.

In many instances the very basis of Christian morality (punishment or reward in the afterlife) is itself immoral.  The Christian denomination of Mormonism has a doctrine known as “baptizing the dead,” in which church members hold baptisms for people who have already passed away.  Mormons believe that these baptisms allow the deceased to reach the celestial kingdom even if they weren’t Mormon in life.  One of the many historical figures the Mormons have symbolically baptized after death is none other than Adolf Hitler, mastermind of the Jewish holocaust during World War 2.  Mormons (or at least the specific Mormons who performed the baptism for Hitler) literally want Hitler to be in heaven.  Where is the morality in that?

One also has to question the morality of a supreme being who decides that an eternity of hellfire is the proper punishment for disbelief. If I, as an atheist who is generally a good person and has never done anything particular “hellworthy,” am to be condemned to hell because I saw no evidence to back up the existence of the Christian God, then I have to call into question that God’s “goodness.”  If God has the ability to prove his existence to me, and therefore save me from being tortured for all eternity, but actively refuses to do so – then it would seem God is the immoral one in this equation.

Finally, there is another important issue to consider when contemplating where morals come from.  If I am correct, and the Christian God isn’t real, then atheists and theists are both taking their morality from men and not from God.  The people asking how I can be moral without belief in God aren’t considering that their morals didn’t come from God either if I am correct in my non-belief.  The various religious figures throughout history who wrote the “holy” books of the world and claimed to receive divine revelation of morality from God were either being actively dishonest or were simply delusional, but either way the end result is the same – all people create their own morals. Some people just claim their morals are backed up by an invisible entity who can’t or won’t show up to confirm their involvement.

3. If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

The number of times I’ve seen this question come up in discussions with the religious is actively disheartening, because this is a myth that just won’t seem to die.  Evolutionary biologists do not, in any way, claim that humans evolved from monkeys.  Let me repeat that, as this is key: humans did NOT evolve from monkeys, and no biologist makes this claim.  Christians who ask this question are literally attacking a stance that no one holds to begin with.

Evolutionary biology teaches that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, which likely lived somewhere in the neighborhood of six million years ago.  Humans and chimps both evolved from that common ancestor, taking different evolutionary paths.  The short video clip below shows biologist Richard Dawkins discussing our common ancestor with chimpanzees.



But how can we possibly know this?  Two of the key evidences available for our common descent are the fossil record, and the human genome. Human and chimp DNA is 96 percent the exact same, which is even more of a match than is found between rats and mice. One of the most overwhelming evidences for our common ancestry with chimpanzees is that chimpanzees have 24 chromosomes, while humans only have 23.  Yet when scientists studied one of the human chromosomes, they found it to be a perfect blending of two chimp chromosomes.

Another frequent objection, which usually comes up with this same issue, is for the theist to state there are no intermediary forms or “missing links.”  This is one of the most common misconceptions theists hold in regards to evolution, because the fossil record does in fact have many intermediary forms, both in the evolution of humans and other creatures.  This brief clip from Richard Dawkins shows him discussing the evolution of whales and the many intermediary forms that have been discovered and are readily available for scrutiny.



Evolution is an exceedingly complex subject with many different issues to be discussed. If you’d like to see some of the other objections to evolution brought up by theists, you can check out my earlier blogs about famous creationists Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort. I also have another blog here that covers a common creationist tactic of taking a quote from Darwin about the human eye out of context to purposefully be misleading.  I highly recommend that everyone study the science of modern evolutionary biology further to gain a greater understanding of why mankind is the way it currently is.  Numerous websites are readily available on the subject that can be found with a Google search as simple as “evidence for evolution.” Many books on the subject are easily obtainable, such as Richard Dawkins’ “The Greatest Show On Earth,” which is likely available at your local library.

4. Where did the universe come from if my particular God isn’t real?

This issue is usually an “end game” tactic when debating with theists, as they fall back on the same method of thinking that led people to pray to deities to change the weather.  As mentioned before, the need for God shrinks as man’s understanding of the natural world grows.  One of the remaining mysteries that haven’t been 100% explained by science is: “Where did the universe come from, and why is it the universe as opposed to anything else that it might have been?”

First off, it should be noted that man most definitely isn’t completely in the dark when it comes to the origin of the universe.  As has been discussed in several of my previous posts, the theory known as the Big Bang does have observable, verifiable evidence backing it up.  You can check out two resources on the observable evidence for the Big Bang at this location and also here.

Attempting to delve into a subject like the Big Bang with a theist who hasn’t read anything on the subject that didn’t come from an explicitly pro-Christian source, and will likely refuse to do so anyway, is an exercise in futility.  An easier way to tackle this subject is to again refer to the common ground of disbelief in certain supernatural claims and to bring up the burden of proof.

Say, for the sake of argument, that we have completely misinterpreted all the available data, and that all current ideas on the origins of the universe are completely wrong.  Even if that were the case, it wouldn’t suddenly make a supernatural explanation more likely to be true.  Simply having a lack of data or complete understanding of a subject is not a valid excuse to throw up your hands and proclaim “An invisible wizard in the sky must be responsible!”

Take, for instance, any of the supernatural beliefs mankind has held throughout its history which were shown to be wrong when more evidence became available.  Lightning is no longer attributed to an angry Zeus, but is now understood to be electricity brought about by atmospheric conditions.  There was a time when people fervently worshipped the sun as a deity.  Now we know the sun is but one of many stars composed of burning hydrogen and helium.  We no longer have to attribute sickness and healing to witchcraft or the whim of the gods, but instead to germs and genetic dispositions and medicine.

Likewise, in current times, there is no reason to assume that a supernatural explanation for the origin of the universe is plausible just because there isn’t enough evidence to have a full understanding of the issue yet.  If a theist insists that a lack of understanding somehow shows that God is responsible for the creation of the universe, then the burden of proof shows that it’s just as likely that Zeus created everything as it is that Jehovah created everything – as there is equally no evidence to suggest either being created existence.

It's also important to take into consideration the implications of the claim that God created the universe.  Christians frequently use an argument known as the "clock without a clockmaker" when trying to convince people that the deity of their particular denomination created everything. I attended a Christian school as a child, and I frequently heard this particular argument.  Typically the Christian will say something along the lines of "If you saw a clock lying in the road, you would never assume that clock simply developed by chance. You would assume that a clock implies there was a clock maker who deliberately designed the clock."

On the surface, this seems like a reasonable argument.  It would in fact seem foolish to say that a working clock developed solely by chance instead of assuming someone put the clock together on purpose.  Unfortunately, this is where the Christian stops using logic in order to continue to maintain a religious delusion.  If nothing exists without a designer, and a clock must have a clock maker, then the next logical step is to ask where God came from.  It would be exceedingly hypocritical, not to mention rather nonsensical, for someone to claim that nothing can exist without a maker, and then immediately claim that God can exist without a God maker.

By throwing your hands in the air and proclaiming "Some invisible God being must have done it!" you only move the equation back one step.  In no way does the assertion that (insert the name of any given religion's God here) created the universe actually answer the question of where the universe really came from.

Please feel free to leave a comment below with common theist arguments you have heard, thoughts on my responses, or even how you have responded to Christians or other religionists when they bring up these issues.

Common Religious Tactics: "I'm Not Religious, I Have A Relationship With Jesus"

In nearly every conversation with the religious that either Megan or I have been involved with, we always see the exact same deflections and arguments come up if the discussion goes on long enough.  In the last segment of this series on common religious tactics, we took a look at the practice of “quote mining,” or taking something out of context to make it sound like something was said when the opposite was actually intended. 

One deflection in particular has been used more and more frequently lately, as it catches on with Christians who spread it across the Internet.  An interesting aspect of the particular tactic we’ll be looking at next is that it relies on the belief that most Christians aren’t “true” Christians, and yet it is used by an increasing number of theists every day. Like many of the arguments we see from the religious, this particular tactic is used because it’s a snappy catch phrase that seems, at first, to shut down any opposition.

Anyone who spends any significant amount of time conversing with the religious about their supernatural beliefs will eventually hear the phrase “I’m not religious, I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.”  This statement is usually brought up as a defensive mechanism when the many horrors caused by religion are discussed, or when someone mentions that all Christians claim to belong to the one true denomination.

I recently posted an editorial on Metalunderground.com dealing with the subject of Christian musicians playing a style of music known as black metal, which is traditionally known for being vehemently anti-religious.  You can check out the article here.  In the arguments that ensued in the comments on that article, we saw a Christian use this tactic of claiming to have a relationship with a religious figure, while not actually being religious himself.

The following quote comes from “Adonijah,” the drummer for the Christian black metal band Frost Like Ashes:

“Funny that many here actually believe that Christianity is religious.

Actually, a personal relationship with the Creator is the antithesis of religion. Jesus was 100% against religion, as are Frost Like Ashes.

Religion IS enslavement, and it serves the purposes of corruptible man who uses it to bend the weak to their fleshly desires; be it money, power, fame, or simply to feed their ego.

What I have transcends the confines of religion. I don't pray to a god with ears that cannot hear, nor an idol with eyes that cannot see...I have communion with the Father of all Creation. No simplistic and narcissistic religion such as paganism and satanism (or any other pitiful attempt at deperately grasping for some kind of meaning in life aside from acknowledging that God is the Author of Life) can touch that. Not even close.”

For another take on this particular deflection, check out this video of a spoken word poem about how loving Jesus and following the Bible is somehow different from belonging to a religion that's been making the rounds on pro-Christian Facebook pages lately. 

Even a cursory glance at this argument reveals how incredibly attractive it is to anyone who believes in the supernatural.  The argument lets a Christian continue to hold on to literally every aspect of their religion – the zombie savior and his talking snake nemesis, the parting seas, the immediate distrust of science and denial of biology, the contradictory and frequently immoral edicts of the Biblical deity – all while allowing them to distance themselves from any aspect of their religion that causes problems for them in a discussion with atheists. 

It lets them back away from a church that routinely rapes children and then protects the rapists, while still holding to the beliefs put forth by that church.  It lets them claim to be different from the parents who let their children die by refusing to seek medical attention for illness, while still believing that prayer can cure ailments as well as medicine.  It lets them side step the absurdity of Ken Ham’s Ark Park, while still believing that every single species of animal in the entire world lived within walking distance of Noah’s house and got along just fine on the ark without eating each other.

Looking at this tactic from a rational and reasonable standpoint shows that it’s not actually any better than just outright saying “I’m religious.”  A grown adult should definitely take pause and consider whether or not they really want to tell the world they have an ongoing relationship with an invisible friend whose existence can’t be proved in any way.

The amazing thing about this argument is that literally anyone can use it.  There’s no litmus test for who really has a relationship with Jesus and who doesn’t, and it’s a pretty sure bet that (the supposedly all-powerful and omnipresent) God isn’t going to come down here and tell anyone who has it right and who doesn’t, even though it should be well within his power and would actually be in his best interest to do so.  A Seventh Day Adventist can use this tactic just as easily as a Pentecostal.  A Charismatic can spout it off just as quickly as a non-denominational.  People with truly bizarre takes on Christianity that blend in occult concepts or aspects of other religions are just as free to say it as the most mainstream, right wing, gun toting Evangelical.

Based on my own extensive discussions with Christians of many, many varieties, it would seem that only the person you are currently talking to is the “real” Christian, while all the rest are fakes somehow.  Since no one can decide which denomination is the right one or who is really interpreting the Bible correctly, there’s nothing preventing religious people of any leaning from claiming they aren’t religious, they just have a true relationship with Jesus.

Claiming to not be religious, while admitting to having an active relationship with a religious figure, is nothing more than attempt to separate oneself from the absurdities and abuses of religion – while still retaining all the benefits offered by religion.  Claiming to not be religious gives the theist the opportunity to try to separate their supernatural beliefs from other absurd beliefs that have no evidence to back them up.  It’s meant to create a barrier between the person using this tactic and the crazy beliefs of Mormons or the followers of Fred Phelps or any other Christian group worthy of ridicule – even though a critical examination will inevitably show that the person making the argument believes things that are equally ludicrous.

This tactic is similar to the way Christians will attack science whenever it conflicts with the Bible, but then continue to make use of electricity, connect to the Internet on a computer, check the weather forecast, drive a vehicle with an internal combustion engine, fly in planes, use medical therapies and vaccines, etc.  They are more than happy to “sleep with the enemy” when it suits them, but then drop their allegiance whenever it causes them problems.

This tactic is a roundabout way of saying “I’m not religious, I’m just religious.” There’s no practical difference between someone who says “I’m not religious, I have a personal relationship with Jesus” and someone who just says “I’m a Christian.”  Both use the same book as the basis for their supernatural beliefs.  Both believe that a big invisible man in the sky impregnated an engaged 13 year old girl named Mary to give birth to himself and then die and rise from the dead.  Both belong to some denomination or school of thought within Christianity. 

It’s clear that this phrase doesn’t have any actual meaning, other than to give the person making the claim an opportunity to distance themselves from other religious people while still retaining their religious beliefs.

James, another contributor for Metalunderground.com, offered this succinct response to the idea that “having a relationship with Jesus” is somehow less absurd or more grounded in reality than “being religious:”

“Websters does define the word religion, go look it up and tell me which part of your Christianity (since yours is the one true one, right?) is so incongruent with each of those definitions that the mere mention of the phrase religion should be struck down as you do.

“Or, let me tell you why you and other Christians pull that line. It's because you're either embarrassed at the state of the Church and want to distance yourself from them (with weasel words) or you're embarrassed at the fact you believe in supernatural forces so you cover it up to make it sound different to, say believing in ghosts or aliens visitations (with weasel words). In case you haven't guessed, I hate weasel words.”

Common Religious Tactics: Quote Mining

Throughout the many discussions I've engaged in with the religious, both on and offline, I've seen a recurring pattern of certain tactics, arguments, and misunderstandings from the Christian side. Since these come in up in almost every instance, I've decided to devote a short blog to each one, along with an explanation of how to deal with each tactic.

We'll start off with one that no Christian should ever use, considering the Christian proscription against dishonesty, but its one that happens with alarming frequency: Quote Mining. Christians often refer to quote mining as "taking out of context" when its done in reference to the Bible. Essentially what occurs with quote mining is that someone selectively quotes a small amount of a larger text or speech in an attempt to make it sound like someone is saying something they weren't actually saying.

To be fair, many Christians may not actively be aware when they are quote mining, as they very rarely attempt to verify any information before spreading it. Since many Christians would never consider the idea that their pastor or priest or bishop may possibly be wrong about something, the misinformation brought about by quote mining spreads very quickly.

As a first example I'll start off with an instance of quote mining I saw on a person's Facebook info page. This individual listed the following quote from U.S. President Barack Obama:

"To say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

This is in fact a correct quote - President Obama did actually say this. The quote comes from his "Call to Renewal" keynote address in 2006 at a conference that was sponsored by a Christian group. President Obama both discusses and defends his faith in Christianity. The quote mining occurs because the individual who posted this quote failed to post the next segment of his speech, in which he said:

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

Do you see how the first part of his quote now has a very different connotation when taken in the context of the whole speech? By only quoting the first half, it appears that President Obama is advocating that laws should be based on the Christian religion. But when you read the whole thing in context, it's very clear he's advocating for no such thing - he's actively stating the opposite, in fact. First he brings up his faith in order to set his religious audience at ease, and then he explains why religious faith alone cannot be used when passing laws - as not everyone is of the same faith, with some people having no religious faith at all. A clip of Obama stating the second half of the quote can be viewed below, while several clips showing the entire speech can be found at this location.



Quote mining most definitely isn't limited to selectively pulling quotes from political figures however, as evolutionary biologist and atheist author Richard Dawkins is probably the person most frequently quoted out of context by the religious. During a discussion with a family friend we'll call "DD" (You can see some of my previous discussions featuring "DD" here and here.), one of DD's acquaintances came on to defend Christianity and attack science. This individual quoted a single sentence from Dawkins that read, "I think any scientist would be unwise to commit himself to saying that there definitely is not anything," implying that even atheistic Dawkins believed in God.

What this person failed to understand was that Dawkins was stating that, scientifically speaking, absolutely nothing can be disproven with absolutely certainty. While I can't conclusively disprove the existence of the Christian God, Christians also can't conclusively disprove the existence of a giant fuzzy pickle named Bob who created the universe. The context of this statement is all important, however, as will become clear when you read the whole quote:

"I think any scientist would be unwise to commit himself to saying that there definitely is not anything. I mean, I can’t definitely commit myself to saying there are no fairies. I’m pretty sure there are no fairies, but I think it would be unscientific to do what the extreme religious people do and say ‘I know there is a god.’ I can’t say ‘I know there is no god.’ I can’t say ‘I know there are no pink unicorns.’”

Do you see the difference now? Dawkins wasn't saying that belief in God is reasonable - he was saying the exact opposite. He was stating that an inability to disprove something doesn't mean you have to accept it as a valid possibility. We can't disprove fairies, but that doesn't mean we have to accept fairies as valid possibilities without any evidence to back up their existence. A clip of Dawkins saying this quote in an interview with Bill Maher can be viewed below.



As a final example, we will delve into one of the most common acts of Christian quote mining, which comes from Charles Darwin himself. Creationists frequently quote a single paragraph from Darwin's book "Origin of Species," which seems to indicate Darwin wasn't sure his theory was actually correct. The quote reads:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

When taken alone, it seems like Darwin is saying that the complexity of the eye disproves evolution. However, as before, the context is all important. The very next paragraph reads:

"When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people is the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Do you see how the context changes everything? Darwin brought up a potential objection a reader might have to his theory, and then goes on to explain why that objection isn't valid. The next few pages of the book explains how eyes evolved, and even list specific examples of animals with eyes in some of those different stages of evolution.

So how do you tell if a quote from a religious person is being mined out of context? Simple: always assume they are quote mined.

Before responding to a quote, always look it up. Google is your friend, and always an easy way to tell if the quote is taken out of context. Type nearly any quote from Dawkins or Darwin in Google, and you'll see page after page of Christian apologetic websites listing the quote, but it will take some time to actually reach the original source of the quote. That's the easiest way to tell - if there are a huge number of religious sites posting the quote and the original source is hidden, it's probably been mined and then repeated without being verified first.

The religious have to rely on ignorance and dishonesty to get their points across. Don't stoop to their level. Truth and reality can win out over superstition and myth if enough people take the time to look at evidence and verify information.

Conversations with the Religious - The Appearance of "DD"

I'm currently in the process of putting together a point-by-point rebuttal of the "Always Be Ready" web page on "evidence" for the existence of the Christian deity, which can be found here. Unfortunately this is taking a good deal of time, so for now I'll be putting up another online conversation I had with a religious individual over a social networking site.

A few months back I posted up a blog in which I mentioned a person we'll call "DD," who is a friend of the family and was recruited by my family members in an attempt to convert me to Christianity through online conversations. In that post, in which another insane religious person likened myself and Megan to Sorcerers and Whormongerers, "DD" only had a small role. This blog will showcase the very first appearance of "DD," which actually took place several months ago.

As a side note, I actually had two separate discussions running with "DD" at the same time - one in an exchange of email messages, and one directly on my Facebook wall. In the discussion below, we occasionally reference things he said in the email exchange. It shouldn't be too hard to follow, but there are a few things worth mentioning for clarity's sake. All you really need to know is that"DD" asked me if I reject Christianity because of some secret past hurt caused by a Christian, or if it was caused by my mother smothering me with her religious beliefs. We also we discussed some of the immorality in the Bible, such as its edicts on slavery and rape.

It's interesting for me to go back and read this discussion from so long ago, because it shows nearly the same pattern we've seen from almost all of our discussions with the religious to this very day. He exudes the characteristics of the "typical" Christian we've debated with on a regular basis for nearly a year now. "DD" outright ignores any arguments he doesn't like, even if they are brought up repeatedly and it's pointed out that that no answer was given.

Like with many of our other discussions, "DD" shows a complete lack of knowledge of the subject of evolution, but feels confident arguing against it anyway. He also keenly shows the difference between atheists and the religious. While Megan and myself have read their scriptures and books by their apologists (and watched documentaries and listened to sermons and so on...), "DD" is completely unwilling to do the same for the other side. One of my upcoming blogs actually deals with an appalling online sermon "DD" had us listen to, which he felt would be able to convert us.

You'll see many of the same cop-outs, non-arguments, and circular reasoning found in many other blogs I've posted. Weirdly, Pascal's Wager doesn't come up here, but "DD" does invoke it later in another discussion.

One final, and rather disturbing, observation is that "DD" lives in a world that very much matches the catch phrase of the dystopian novel "1984," which says "War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength." He actively shuns knowledge and reasoning, defends terrible atrocities in the Bible as cultural issues that can't be judged by people in modern times, and even directly says that living under the rule of a deity provides freedom.

The discussion started because I posted up a link to a website giving 50 reasons why the Christian God is imaginary. "DD" came on to post about how he disagreed.



DD
This is true, the god they described here is imaginary. The god they fabricated in this article through twisting scripture, taking it out of context, and applying weak human expectations and reasonings towards is surely fake and non-existent. :)

Ty Arthur
*Standard Facebook disclaimer - please don't take anything here personally. I'm going to respond with my thoughts, but they shouldn't be viewed as an angry personal attack or anything like that*

"Weak human expectations and reasoning?" What other type of expectations and reasonings are there besides "human?" Even if you are going to respond that there is some sort of supernatural reasoning ability beyond the human ken, then you still have the deal with the fact that you wouldn't be able to understand it, so it's a completely moot point.

I most certainly didn't see anything taken out of context, but rather found they did a good deal of research to use multiple verses to back up every claim. Take for instance the very first argument about prayer. They very clearly list the majority of the various verses proclaiming that believers can do anything through prayer, and showcase how this is so obviously false (if the words of the Bible are literally correct, you should be able to end all cancer via prayer immediately).

It's an amazing double standard for Christians, because if something happens that people prayed about, they can proclaim that a supernatural force did it (never mind the chemotherapy treatments or the people who worked to raise the money or whatever else actually caused the event to occur) and if nothing happens, they can twist scripture and go through those wonderful weak human reasonings and state something silly along the lines of "Well, God needed to refine me" or "I know God needed me to learn a lesson from this," despite the fact that they know no such thing, as no supernatural entity has ever talked to anyone (and if anyone does think a supernatural entity is talking to them - they need to seek immediate professional help. That's not spirituality, that's a sign of mental illness).

This website even specifically discusses the knee-jerk "taken out of context" response (Christian code for: "I don't like that you've pointed out something absurd, immoral, or disturbing in my holy book") by stating:

"If a perfect being is going to make statements about how prayer works in the Bible, then three things are certain: 1) He would speak clearly, 2) he would say what he means, and 3) he would speak the truth. That is what 'being perfect is all about. A perfect, all-knowing God would know that people would be reading the Bible 2,000 years later, and therefore he would not use first-century idioms (he would say what he means). He would know that normal people will be reading the Bible and interpreting it in normal ways, so he would speak in such a way as to avoid mis-interpretation (he would speak clearly). He would know that when you say, 'Nothing will be impossible for you,' that what it means is, 'Nothing will be impossible for you' and he would make sure that the statement 'Nothing will be impossible for you' is accurate (he would speak the truth). If God says it, it should be true -- otherwise he is not perfect. Unfortunately, the fact is that thousands of things are impossible for you no matter how much you pray."

If Jesus didn't mean "nothing will be impossible for you," then he should have said "I will occasionally answer a small percentage of prayers that can otherwise be explained by non-supernatural means, and will ignore the vast majority of other prayers, and at no point will you be able to do something like end the cancer I have so graciously created for you."

DD
I can only respond to all this by saying that revelation of who God is and how He operates only comes through relationship and communion with Him. The bible is not a formula or combination lock where you apply verses to a situation and *poof*, answers and prayers are revealed. God reveals Himself and the understanding of His Word to those who love Him. That's the way God designed it. He isn't a cheap date where He can be used by those wanting to tap into His power and mystery without relationship and intimacy with Him. He wants us to seek Him, not to use Him. Through genuine full-hearted seeking comes understanding. How do I know this? Theology was cold and dead to me until I walked in obedience to His will. This is the only time scripture will make sense. I absolutely understand confusion and apparent contradictions. I've been there.

Not only does my experience back up this revelation, the bible testifies to it. I discovered these truths in the bible only AFTER I experienced something God did. I didn't read it in the bible and then try to make it happen. That's how I know the bible is true.

You won't be able to intellectually figure out God's ways. When your heart really wants Him, then He will honor that and give you understanding. He will not "dance" for you just cuz you tell Him to prove Himself. It's all about your heart condition...

Ty Arthur
I can understand where you are coming from, and why this idea of having to seek God to find him is comforting to you, but surely you can see how this seems like a cop-out to the atheist?

The idea lets you continue to keep your supernatural world view, regardless of how sound any arguments against it happen to be or how much evidence is piled up before you, because anyone arguing against your God can't possibly be correct as they haven't found God yet. It borders on circular reasoning.

Say for example that I took everything you wrote in your last post and replaced the word "God" with "Zeus." The arguments you present wouldn't actually change in any way, and I could even use them against you in the same way to try to convince you that the words of Zeus don't make sense to you because you haven't properly communed with him yet. Any argument you give against Zeus is invalid, because Zeus only reveals himself to those who love him.

The same reasons why you outright reject Zeus, Allah, Hecate, Cthulhu, or any other deity are some of the same reasons why I outright reject your particular deity.

DD
The idea of seeking God isn't my rule or any other Christian's rule. I don't believe it because it comforts me, rather, I believe it because I see how God's word just lines up with the way things are, in my life and in others. It's not just an intellectual belief, I've seen it to be true.

The difference between "Zeus" and God is that Zeus(or any other god) doesn't have an in-depth book about himself that describes how to get to know him in a personal way and then as a result have it manifest into real, personal, lasting, positive change, only verifying the very words of the book to be true :)

For one to claim that something absolutely doesn't exist(the supernatural) you would have to be everywhere at all times and be all-knowing (like the God of the bible is described) unless you think your limited life has experienced all that there is to experience on this earth, which would be the finest definition of arrogance and ignorance. What's easier to verify is something that claims to exist. You can test it and seek out it's claims. If you as an atheist never seek to prove the gospel by living it, you don't even have a valid position to argue from.

It would be like you telling me hawaii isn't awesome but having never been there. We have both read about it but only I really know what it is like since I went there. Not that I would be better than you or arrogant about having experienced the awesomeness of Hawaii but the fact remains, your view would be ignorant(not dumb, just unknowing). Reading the bible won't get you there. Living it out with humility will. Again, not my rules. That's just the way truth is wired into this life.

With all due respect, Ty :)

Ty Arthur
DD, you said “The difference between ‘Zeus’ and God is that Zeus (or any other god) doesn't have an in-depth book about himself that describes how to get to know him in a personal way and then as a result have it manifest into real, personal, lasting, positive change, only verifying the very words of the book to be true.”

Apparently you are unaware of the Koran or any other holy book? All the members of all religions feel the exact same way and all have their own personal testimonies of lasting, positive changed brought on by their deity. You don’t think people who once fervently worshipped Zeus didn’t feel the same way? One day your religion is also going to pass into the annals of mythology and people will discuss the biblical deity in the same way they discuss Zeus today.

You also said “For one to claim that something absolutely doesn't exist(the supernatural) you would have to be everywhere at all times and be all-knowing (like the God of the bible is described) unless you think your limited life has experienced all that there is to experience on this earth, which would be the finest definition of arrogance and ignorance.”

There’s two responses to this.

First, you are misunderstanding how the burden of proof works. When someone makes a claim (for instance “Fairies are real” or “A big invisible man in the sky wants you to telepathically affirm your allegiance to his zombie son because of the antics of a talking snake”), the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim to prove the claim, not on me to disprove them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and not only have I not seen extraordinary evidence for either of the two aforementioned claims, I haven’t seen any evidence at all.

Secondly, you have opened up a big can of worms and made it so that you have to be willing to accept any absurd claim people make when you said “you would have to be everywhere at all times and be all-knowing.” I can claim that the universe was created by a giant fuzzy pickle, and that his messenger is an invisible purple elephant who moves at the speed of light and requires that we all bathe thrice on Wednesdays. You absolutely can’t disprove my claim, because “you would have to be everywhere at all times and be all-knowing unless you think your limited life has experienced all that there is to experience on this earth, which would be the finest definition of arrogance and ignorance.” The fact of the matter is that, until compelling evidence is provided to suggest otherwise, I don’t even have to consider the supernatural to be a valid possibility. If you feel otherwise, then you have to give equal credence to the absurd beliefs of Scientology or Mormonism because you don't know everything in the universe.

There’s also a very simple way you could easily dismiss my arguments and show me the error of my ways. Go ahead and do something supernatural. To make it easier, I’ll only require you perform a supernatural act that happened in the Bible so you already know God is OK with performing this act. Go ahead and part a sea, or resurrect the dead, or cause a disembodied and floating hand to scribble instructions on walls, or show me a bush that burns and is not consumed and has a big booming voice, or summon bears to consume children who annoy you. As soon as you show me any of these supernatural feats, I will accept that the supernatural is real.

You stated “What's easier to verify is something that claims to exist. You can test it and seek out it's claims. If you as an atheist never seek to prove the gospel by living it, you don't even have a valid position to argue from.” Well first of all, I have lived the Christian life and am very intimately familiar with the Bible and Christian culture, so it’s not really a charge that can be leveled at me. Secondly, this argument isn’t valid in any way, and you can know that by applying it to yourself. Do you feel that you don’t have a valid position to argue against beliefs in Zeus or Islam or Wicca because you haven’t ever sought to prove those various religious beliefs by living them? Obviously you don’t feel that way, so you can’t then expect others to follow a rule you aren’t willing to follow yourself.

Megan Equality Mattingly-Arthur
Hi DD, I've been following this thread and I wanted to address some of the issues you brought up. I was a Christian for 23 years, so I understand why your first tactic was to ask Ty if he'd been hurt by a Christian in his past. When I was a Christian, I too found it absolutely incomprehensible that someone that knew about god could deny him. I was an incredibly devout Christian and I studied my Bible constantly. Yep, you're looking at someone with approximately 20 years of serious Bible study experience. The problem was, the more I studied the Bible the harder I had to work to convince myself that it wasn't ridiculous. The immorality of the Bible, combined with a complete lack of historical or scientific evidence to support its claims, led to my decision to become an atheist.

Christianity does terrible things to people. It takes basically nice people, who would normally abhor practices like slavery, murder, rape, incest, filicide (the killing of one's own children), sexism, homophobia and other BLATANTLY WRONG practices, and forces them to rationalize it.

DD
I'll just sum up by saying there is still hope, since you two have only encountered man's religion and not true relationship with the living, loving God. Blessings :)

Ty Arthur
I can't help it, I just have to...

I'll just sum up by saying there is still hope, since you have only encountered man's religion and not true relationship with the living, loving Zeus.

Megan Equality Mattingly-Arthur
DD, I couldn't help but notice that you ignored every single one of Ty's criticisms about Christianity. There's no need for beating around the bush: you should have just come right out and said that you were unable (or unwilling) to answer them.

Also, it's insulting for you to insinuate that I wasn't the right kind of Christian or that I didn't have "a true relationship" with god. But you're right about one thing, since god isn't real, neither was my "relationship" with him...it was all in my head and all those little warm fuzzy feelings were chemicals firing in my brain. And that, DD, is exactly what your "relationship" with god is.

DD
Megan, I know I didn't address everything. We could easily go around endlessly continuing to counter each other but that is fruitless. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I don't have that power. Debates will never determine what truth is. Intellect and reasoning will never decide truth. I will talk more about my faith if someone truly wants to learn, but if we are both set in our ways, we are just causing tension and we don't need that. Sorry if I have insulted you. I bless you guys :)

Ty Arthur
I'm sorry to see the conversation have to come to an end. I understand if you want to remove yourself from the discussion, and there certainly won't be any hard feelings either way, but I'd like to address a few points still.

First off, please don't worry at all about causing tension or hurt feelings. At any given point in time Megan and I both have multiple discussions just like this one going on all across Facebook, so we've heard just about every offensive thing possible, and we've gained a thick enough skin to not be bothered by it. In fact, this has really been one of the more benign conversations (we frequently see things like people reminding us we should be stoned to death for our blasphemy or people talking about how much they can't wait to gloat over our eternal damnation from heaven or even outright personal attacks on our looks/taste in music/anything else).

Moving on to your last posts, I feel like I need to point out that not only did you not address everything, you didn't actually address anything. There hasn't been any endless countering, because you haven't actually countered anything yet. You do know that, right? I'm not asking that to be glib or insulting, it's just that this is a recurring trend I've found in nearly every discussion I've had about religion. The religious have a tendency to simply outright ignore every argument or statement they don't like. For example, are you now going to start truly and fervently living an Islamic lifestyle so that you can know for sure whether Islam is right or wrong? You didn't even acknowledge that argument, or the fact that I pointed out it doesn't make sense. You place a very large emphasis on feeling God's love and knowing he's real because of feelings, so how do you know that the feeling of love you will get from Allah won't far eclipse your current feelings?

You mentioned that "I will talk more about my faith if someone truly wants to learn, but if we are both set in our ways..." The problem here is that only one of us in this discussion in set in our ways and refusing to change. Megan and I both started from the religious position, and then changed our minds in the face of evidence (or more accurately in many cases, the lack thereof). I changed my mind very early on, and Megan did likewise in her early 20s. I would be more than happy to change my mind on the subject of the supernatural. Honestly, who doesn't want to live forever or have magic powers or think there is something bigger than them looking out for their well being? I would be in hog heaven if I could use magic spells to smite my enemies or levitate or summon bears or anything else. Unfortunately, wanting something to be true does not make it true. I would love to be proven wrong about the supernatural - but until sufficient evidence that can be verifiably repeated is presented, I can't in good conscience change my position.

You said, "Debates will never determine what truth is. Intellect and reasoning will never decide truth." The problem with this is that you are trying to prove things or decide how you are going to live your life through emotion alone. Emotion doesn't give you truth, it just gives you feelings. Reasoning will absolutely get us to a place where we can determine truth or falsehood, but emotion never will. You can know this because members of opposing denominations of your particular religion, and members of opposing religions altogether, all feel the exact same way you do about their beliefs. Your emotional arguments lead people in equal amounts to other religions as they do to your religion. If my belief in the giant fuzzy pickle and his invisible elephant messenger gave me all the warm fuzzy feelings you get from your superstitions, I would hope you would still be willing to see that my beliefs are still absurd and baseless, even if they make me feel good.

DD
One last thing I want to point out Megan, why would you be insulted if I merely pointed out the fact that you haven't encountered God? If He really doesn't exist, that means you haven't encountered Him and I would just be confirming your truth, so why would that be insulting? You should instead be happy I acknowledged your truth.

Maybe what you felt right there was something violating your sensibilities or conscience. What was violated? Offense cannot happen if you are fully secure in your beliefs. What are you insecure about? Your emotions reveal what's going at a deeper level in your soul. But maybe there is no such thing as emotion or feeling offended since you say feelings are just "chemicals firing in your brain." ;) Both good and bad feelings are just chemicals right?

I don't wish to drag out our beliefs any further but the last part of this convo of how you feel is interesting.

Ty Arthur
DD, in reference to your last post (I won't speak for Megan but rather share my views on it - I'm sure she'll be more than happy to respond when she gets back on the computer), you looked way too far into what was said and completely missed why she used the phrase "insulted."

The problem is that you are trying to have it both ways. If Megan and I had never read the bible, you would use an argument about how we can't argue against Christianity because we don't know enough about it.

Since we do know all about Christianity and its various denominations, and have prayed to God and taken part in worship services and honestly believed in the biblical deity in the past, you need to have some other idea to reconcile why we still reject the beliefs you hold so dear - which is why you had to say "since you two have only encountered man's religion and not true relationship with the living, loving God" in place of answering any of my arguments or addressing any of the issues we brought up.

The fact of the matter is that there aren't any "true relationships" or "false relationships" with God, as God isn't real. It's like when people ask "are you sure he was really a Christian?" Because the supernatural beliefs behind Christianity aren't real, there isn't any distinction between a "true" and "false" Christian - to be a Christian, one simply has to claim Christianity.

What's "insulting" is that you are saying the 20+ years Megan was a Christian somehow don't count as really having been a Christian because she didn't ultimately come to the same conclusions you have. You need to believe that Megan didn't experience the "real" Christianity because she de-converted, and you haven't yet. There's no insecurity whatsoever involved, just simply an acknowledgment that the way you dismissed her entire period as a Christian as "false" (in the sense that a thing that was never true to begin with can be "false") was rather silly, and revealed something about the motivations behind your own arguments.

DD
Ty, I said I could easily address all the points but my answers I've given thus far aren't received with a curiousity but rather a response that you are firmly decided. And that's ok if you are decided, I just know I am doing the equivalent of driving a nail with a screwdriver. I'm not out to conquer though. It's not really going anywhere since you seem to be convinced of your position, and again, that's ok.

The people who speak those things about gloating over your damnation are christians who are ignorant of God's love and have never felt it and are against the will of God by speaking to you like that. I don't make excuses for christians who do wicked things. Many people call themselves christians but really aren't. But christians also make mistakes just like any other person. A christian is just covered by God's grace and mercy because of their repentant heart. And we have to repent often because we miss the mark on loving people often. People who say those things don't know what God's love for people really looks like. God's love have given me a love for people that before I would have cared less about. That's an evidence for God's love that isn't emotion, it's a true act of change. Love is an action, not a feeling. Christ dying for our sins was love, and was an action, not a fuzzy feeling. Just like you love your wife, you do things out of love for her, it isn't just an emotion.

The whole allah thing and any other god for that matter, none of their books describe the love that the bible God is described as having so I already know they don't offer it.

Read my note on my page called "God's love does what??". It isn't emotion, it produces good change in character and brings peace and joy. It does a whole lot more. Tell me what you think.

You may think this is odd but I really do wish good things for you. I know the peace and joy that I've had and I wish those things on all people. Who doesn't want true peace and joy that doesn't waver amongst circumstances? God out of His love wants you to experience these things too. He is all about your joy, not to make you follow rules for the sake of rules. Just like a father gives his rules to his children, so does our God. In his rules there is freedom. That makes no sense unless you are living in obedience, that's why i'm not trying to convince you cuz I know you aren't living it. But you can if you choose and submit to God.

One last thing, our earthly father and how he treated us is very much like how we view God. If your father was wicked, you will think "God" is too. God is nothing like your earthly father. He desires good for you better than any parent could show you.

Blessings :)

Megan Equality Mattingly-Arthur
DD, you say, "I know I didn't address everything." No, the problem ISN'T that you didn't address "everything", it's that you didn't address ANYTHING. We haven't been "going round and round trying to counter each other", Ty and I have been presenting logical criticisms of/arguments against Christianity and you've been doing your darnedest to avoid them entirely. If you worked half as hard trying to address our criticisms as you do trying to avoid addressing them, we might actually be getting somewhere in this discussion.

You say, "Intellect and reasoning will never decide truth." Uhhh, this is an absolutely false statement. Using intellect and reason is EXACTLY how one determines the truth of something. In fact, you should be IMMEDIATELY suspicious of ANYTHING that asks you to abandon the use of logic and reasoning, i.e. the Bible and Christianity.

I've seen tons of Christians try to squirm out of debates by saying that they bring "tension" or "contention". I feel that an open and honest dialogue between Christians and non-believers is absolutely necessary. Besides, as a Christian, 1 Peter 3:15 commands you to engage in debates like these to "give an answer for the hope that is in you".

Oh DD, you completely misunderstood why I used the word "insulted". What I found insulting is that, without knowing anything about it, you were immediately willing to discount my experience of Christianity by claiming that it wasn't valid. Just like you then went on to say that the Christians we encounter on a daily basis "aren't real Christians". It's a cop-out and I'm calling you on it.

Have you read the Koran to know for certain that Allah doesn't offer the same love that your Biblical god does? If you have read the Koran, or any other "holy book" for that matter, now's the time to speak up. Oh, and before, when you were saying that none of these other gods have elaborate books written about them...perhaps you haven't heard of or read "Bulfinch's Mythology", which chronicles the Greek and Roman mythology. It's a good read and I highly recommend it.

You say that you want to share with people the peace and joy that you've had with god. I want to share with people the peace and joy that I've had WITHOUT god. Not only am I MUCH happier in my atheism, I also make much better decisions these days. Why? Well, because now I use knowledge, logic and reason as my guide.

Ty Arthur
Apologies if my responses sound like I'm unwilling to change my mind, but I've gone through all of these same arguments about a hundred times over the past few months with many different religious people of varying denominations, and I've examined them all from many different angles, so that's where my confidence in my answers is coming from. Without further ado (your words in quotes to streamline the arguments):

"Ty, I said I could easily address all the points but my answers I've given thus far aren't received with a curiousity but rather a response that you are firmly decided."

I don't need to be curious about whether or not talking snakes and zombie saviors are real until you can provide concrete proof of their existence. There is fantasy, and there is reality - and talking snakes are in the former category. You are more than welcome to try to prove me wrong on that point.

"The people who speak those things about gloating over your damnation are christians who are ignorant of God's love and have never felt it and are against the will of God by speaking to you like that."

This is another aspect of religion that is so disturbing. You do understand that there are millions of people around the world who would say the exact same thing about you, right? God doesn't talk to you and share his secrets, so you really can't say one way or another what he thinks or whether people you don't even know have felt his love or not. While this is definitely a benign example, the belief that people somehow are intimately aware of what an invisible and all powerful being thinks and does has led to some of the worst atrocities in history, and continues to do so today.

"That's an evidence for God's love that isn't emotion, it's a true act of change."

You are still ignoring arguments that have already been made. If your change is proof that your God is real and others are not - then are the real changes of people of opposing religions proof that their deities are real and yours is not? This is not a rhetorical question, please answer it.

"Christ dying for our sins was love, and was an action, not a fuzzy feeling."

So then are the other religions that have a savior character who dies and rises again all correct also? I would also say you should do some research into the lack of historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. I know that Christians have that cute little catch phrase they like to quote that "there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than George Washington," but I assure you that's not correct. The lack of evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus is beyond the scope of the argument, but I'm more than happy to get into it.

"The whole allah thing and any other god for that matter, none of their books describe the love that the bible God is described as having so I already know they don't offer it."

I'm guessing what this response means is that you haven't actually read the Koran or any other holy book (apologies if I'm incorrect there - but it's a good bet you haven't read every holy book that describes a loving God, and based on your statements so far, it doesn't seem like you aren’t aware of the intricacies of Islam's teachings at all). You also seem to be missing that you are now contradicting yourself and playing both sides of the argument. Before you said that I couldn't argue against Christianity because I hadn't lived it and had only read its holy book - now you are saying you still get the right to argue against Islam even though you haven't lived it and have only read its holy book? Please reconcile this inconsistency.

Do you recall the other discussion we had where we were sending each other messages and all the arguments you ignored there? I outright deny that the Biblical God offers any sort of "love" that would be desirable. Where is the love in giving the command that, if you rape a woman out in the country, your only punishment will be to pay her father and marry her, but if you rape her in the city, she is to be killed for not screaming louder?

"It isn't emotion, it produces good change in character and brings peace and joy."

So does Islam, does that mean Islam is real? For that matter, so does atheism, so does that prove my lack of belief is the correct path? Leaving behind religion means that I no longer have to rationalize the evil actions of any holy book's God and his followers, nor do I have to hate homosexuality and try to take away the rights of other human beings for a perceived slight against my God, nor would I ever shoot an abortion doctor or strap on an explosive vest and run into a crowded market place.

"Who doesn't want true peace and joy that doesn't waver amongst circumstances? God out of His love wants you to experience these things too."

Right, we've actually been over this. If you recall, I actually brought it up. Wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. Who doesn't want the ability to fling fireballs from their fingertips or immediately cure cancer or end world hunger? Does my question in any way then make those abilities real? Of course not!

"In his rules there is freedom."

Not for the slaves who were beaten with a rod and died two days later.

"That makes no sense unless you are living in obedience"

What would your response be if an Islamic person said the exact same thing to you about why you don't understand or accept Allah's true love for you?

"But you can if you choose and submit to God."

But you can if you choose and submit to Allah.

"One last thing, our earthly father and how he treated us is very much like how we view God. If your father was wicked, you will think 'God' is too. God is nothing like your earthly father. He desires good for you better than any parent could show you."

What an incredibly counter-productive system for an all powerful, all knowing God to set up. Fortunately for me, the point is moot, as my earthly father doted on me. This is also another one of those issues (like your claims that we weren't really Christians) that even you should be able to see as so transparently a cop-out. Because we have experienced your religion, and are incredibly well aware of what it teaches and how it works, you have to have an "out" so to speak to rationalize why we still reject your beliefs. If it isn't that a Christian hurt me in the past, or that my mother smothered me with religion (another option you would try to have both ways - if someone was raised Christian and stayed Christian you wouldn't see a problem with it), or that I didn't really experience God's love in the first place (by the way - that sounds like a failing on your God's part, not mine), then it must be because of something my dad did? Come on man, you can do better than that.

Eric
God is a giant Placebo;)

DD
I guess what's tough about discussing all this is that every view I offer, it's immediately cast down as ridiculous, contradictory, and seen to have flaws. I see the atheistic view the same way. So that's why this will bear no good fruit. My explanations don't satisfy anyone so any further explanations with provide further dissatisfaction. I've been in plenty of debates to know how this goes:) I won't change your mind so why do you push so hard for answers, to make a mockery and make it look like I don't know what I'm talking about? Sure, I don't know everything, but I do know God's love.

I'm not sure why you want to continue this discussion. Because if you 'win' this discussion you will feel better about your beliefs? Or are you open to changing your mind? I really don't need to prove myself in any debates to be secure in my beliefs. I questioned God on plenty of things growing up as I had doubts, and He showed Himself to me and kept showing over and over that scripture totally applied to everyday life, not just to my life but others as well. So not only do I have intellectual knowledge, I have experiential knowledge. I can't prove my experience to you and convince you and that's ok. I can say God answers prayers so often I don't even think of that as a big special feat. That's just what He does and I love Him for that.

Megan, I did give my answer for the hope that is in me...the love that I experience from God often. :) Also, intellect and reason doesn't DETERMINE truth, it reveals it. The truth was there the whole time. We just discover that it was already there. I critically examined God and the bible and my relationship with Him and discovered the bible absolutely describes how life works. I didn't toss out reason. I applied intellect and reason and it REVEALED truth, I didn't create a truth. Also Megan, I didn't discount that you had christian faith. Many have faith but never experience or encounter God in a deep way. I'm saying you didn't encounter God. You encountered faith in a religion, but that isn't even on the same playing field. How do I know this? I had faith for 21 years before God revealed His power, mercy, grace, and love over me in a real tangible way. Why did it take so long? Because I wasn't seeking Him with everything I had. He was ready to give it the whole time. It was half-hearted seeking. He wants full hearted seeking. Then my faith made sense. So yeah, I played a religious game like most and that's where most ppl argue from. I get it. This is just my experience. Your doubting that I feel His love doesn't change anything for me.

If you want further answers, you can ask God to show you His love and show Himself to you. It will not work if you just want Him to dance like a monkey at every request. You have to humbly, genuinely want Him with everything. He responds to a humble, needy heart. Blessings :)

Ryan
Ty, interesting articles - I'm currently on #8 and am quite hooked. The person who wrote them can come off as a bit of a dick occasionally, but overall, a quite in-depth discussion on faith/god.

Ty Arthur
Hey Ryan, thanks for your comment! I’m glad someone is getting something out of this, as I’ve loved this website since finding it. I understand what you mean about the author being a bit of a dick from time to time (Heh, I’m guessing you are probably referring to number 7 “Understanding Religious Delusion," which is actually one of my favorites), but I actually feel that people are too nice about religious belief. In another thread someone leveled the charge of “intolerant” at Megan and myself, and to be honest I don’t deny it in any way. We don’t tolerate grown adults believing in Santa Claus or invisible miniature purple elephants, so I don’t feel we need to tolerate people believing in a talking snake and a zombie savior. I don’t feel religion should be beyond criticism. If someone believed in a miniature invisible purple elephant named Bob who created the concept of waffles, we would call them insane, but as soon as the label “religion” gets slapped on suddenly there is this general consensus that the belief has to be accepted (Hahah, now that I’m at the end of my rant I feel I need to add that I’m not saying you feel that way, I’m just saying that’s how I feel about religion in general).

On to DD: Alright, first off let’s get something out the way immediately regarding your questions of why I have continued writing on this post. You commented on my post, not the other way around, so I have no compunctions whatsoever about continuing to respond as frequently as I wish until the end of my natural life. It’s my Facebook page, and no one else is required to like it at all. On the subject, you originally posted in an attempt to discredit the resource I made available, and to date have not adequately done so in any way.

Beyond that, you’ve also made statements that I find very silly at best, and greatly disturbing at worst, and I feel it’s my duty to respond to them instead of let them lie. I don’t mean to be antagonistic, but it’s very worrying that on this thread and the messages we were sending each other that you are unwilling to agree that rules about when it’s acceptable to rape women and beat slaves (or “employees” as you’ve stated I should call them) to death are immoral, and then you go on to explain that you know your particular invisible sky daddy is real because you can feel his love and have been changed by it, but are unwilling to acknowledge that members of other religions have felt the same transformations.

Not to get poetic (OK, that’s a lie, I adore getting poetic), but I want to shine the light of reason into the darkness of blind faith. I want to live in a world where unreasoning belief in invisible, intangible, and magical beings is the aberration instead of the norm. When I eventually have children, I don’t want them to have to worry about suicide bombers, or extremist Christian groups who feel it’s OK to shoot and kill people as a “defensive action,” or have to be negatively impacted by laws enacted solely to make other people comply with someone’s religious beliefs. Should I have a gay child, I would want him or her to have the same rights as everyone else, and not have to deal with the ridicule and scorn of their peers because of the unreasoning hatred spawned by the term “abomination” in the Bible (noting of course that these same people still eat shrimp, even though the bible uses the word “abomination” about eating shrimp as well). I don’t want my children to have to deal with diseases and health defects that could otherwise be cured, were it not for religion consistently standing in the way of scientific and medical progress. I want my kids to live in a world free of constant, never-ending conflict in the middle east because two groups both think a big invisible man in the sky gave them the right to own a little piece of land.

As a final note on why I will always continue to respond to threads such as these – I’m currently in the process of writing a book about atheism (currently dubbed “Letting Go of Santa Claus”), and these discussions are my main source of research. While I’m very familiar with the many forms of Christianity and the standard arguments from the famous apologists, it’s these conversations that let me see what the rank and file Christians of any given denomination have to say in real life situations when presented with atheist ideas.

Now on to some specific arguments. You stated, “I guess what's tough about discussing all this is that every view I offer, it's immediately cast down as ridiculous, contradictory, and seen to have flaws.”

Yes. There have been several instances where you’ve had a double-standard for yourself or proposed contradictory ideas, and I’ve clearly pointed these out. If you feel they aren’t contradictory, ridiculous, or full of flaws, you are more than welcome to address any of the issues I’ve raised and explain why I’m wrong. I welcome your comments here, and in fact have been repeatedly asking for them throughout this discussion.

“I see the atheistic view the same way.”

The difference is that I have clearly and reasonably explained my position, but you haven’t explained in any way why my lack of faith in your invisible friend is contradictory or ridiculous. I’m perfectly open to hearing your views on the subject, but should your answers continue to boil down to “you haven’t sought him properly and in the same way as me yet,” then I’m afraid there will continue to be ridicule. I expect evidence before changing my mind, not statements on why your deity makes you feel better about yourself or gives you a reason to change your life. You will in no way accept a Muslim’s identical claims, so clearly you can see why I wouldn’t accept yours?

“I questioned God on plenty of things growing up as I had doubts, and He showed Himself to me and kept showing over and over that scripture totally applied to everyday life, not just to my life but others as well.”

I’m beginning to feel like a broken record, but I am again going to ask how Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (rape a woman and pay her dad 50 bucks, but you have to marry her), Deuteronomy 21:18 – 21 (stone rebellious children to death), and Exodus 21: 20-21 (no punishment for beating a slave with a rod so long as he lives for a day or two) totally apply to everyday life. If you are going to believe the Bible is the divinely inspired word of an all-knowing, all-powerful God, you can’t just pick out the verses you like and ignore the evil verses.

“I can say God answers prayers so often I don't even think of that as a big special feat. That's just what He does and I love Him for that.”

Oh, really? Then go ahead and pray to end all cancer. Pray to stop world hunger. Pray to end war in the middle east. Why is God willing to take the time to hold your hand and help you out with your mundane problems (as I can say without reservation that any “answered prayers” you are referencing are without question things that will have a non-supernatural answer should you take the time to examine them – not to mention the fact that God answering prayers at all contradicts the idea of free will) but unwilling or unable to stop earthquakes from ravaging whole nations or families from going bankrupt?

“I critically examined God and the bible and my relationship with Him and discovered the bible absolutely describes how life works.”

So you are now agreeing that men who rape women in the country should only have to pay her father 50 silver and then marry her? I’m confused.

“I didn't toss out reason. I applied intellect and reason and it REVEALED truth…”

There’s no way not to be antagonistic here, and I’m sorry about this, but how exactly do you feel that your belief in a talking snake being the nemesis of a cosmic Jewish zombie (who is his own dad) isn’t the very definition of tossing out reason? (As I asked before), please go ahead and verifiably perform any of the supernatural feats in the Bible, and I will immediately apologize and accept the possibility of your supernatural world view.

“If you want further answers, you can ask God to show you His love and show Himself to you. It will not work if you just want Him to dance like a monkey at every request. You have to humbly, genuinely want Him with everything. He responds to a humble, needy heart.”

Again (as you have never answered this question), what would your response be if someone from an opposing religion said these exact same words to you to explain why you can’t see the truth and love of their invisible friend?

Ryan
Ty, it just seems like he's (assuming it's a "he" here) adding insult to injury with how he has taken to writing his theses. I find his arguments to be quite compelling, reasonable and logical, but he tends to be a bit snipey in his wording.

DD
Ty, I'm glad you mentioned the cancer thing and cultures clashing in the middle east. First off, God wants to heal us of cancer and disease. You say you read the bible many times. That doesnt mean you understand it as a whole and what God is doing and showing throughout the entire book as a complete picture. He wants to heal and he shows us how to get healing, by obeying His Word. He doesn't just answer any prayer. The caveat is that we obey and abide in Him, then he responds to us and answers prayers. Sorry, he is not a genie in a bottle that you want so bad. The book explains it all. And you calling out arcane culture laws is just your cop out...those laws have no effect on the way God's called us how to live today. If you understood Jesus' teachings you would know those don't apply today but you just want to focus on a cultural difference in a time you don't understand. Who are you to judge? where do you get your sense of justice? You really don't understand the bible as much as you say if that is your hang up. You don't understand context of the entire bible.

Conflict in the middle east... I asked megan-you say God is immoral and evil, who determines what is moral, good or evil? How is any conflict resolved when different cultures clash over morality(middle east for example, abortion, cannibalism)while assuming each of their morality is moral? How do you know you are moral? Who determines ultimate morality? You sit back and judge what you think is moral. By what standard?

How does evolution account for our sense of justice, morality, love, beauty? These things have no room to develop in an evolutionary model of survival of the fittest, live and just die. Nothing cries out INJUSTICE when a lion takes out a gazelle, but humans cry out injustice when the a strong person oppresses a weak person. But evolution says that's ok, survival of the fittest right? There is a reason humans operate differently(sense of justice, morality) than the animal kingdom, the bible says why. Evolution has no answers for this.

Ty Arthur
I know it probably won’t matter, but I’d like to point out you still ignored the vast majority of my arguments and refused to answer questions I specifically asked for. Ignoring reality won’t make it go away.

DD, you stated that evolution doesn’t determine morality, and that’s among the first rational and correct things you’ve said so far. Unfortunately this doesn’t actually mean anything. You are right – the science of biology has nothing whatsoever to do with morality or how we determine what morality is. There is no connection there at all. It’s like saying that the science behind internal combustion engines doesn’t determine our morality. While a true statement, it doesn’t somehow refute the science behind combustion engines in any way.

Also, let’s get something out of the way about evolution right now. I’ve been through this particular discussion many a time, and when the religious person begins to run out of ammo they start attacking evolution instead of defending their own positions. Let’s say for the sake of argument that our understanding of modern biology is absolutely wrong in every way, and all the medicines and therapies we’ve derived from it don’t work but we just haven’t noticed yet. Even if that were true, and evolution were absolutely false in every way, it wouldn’t somehow make any given religion’s myths more likely. Even if we have gotten biology just dead wrong, it doesn’t make it even one iota more likely that a big invisible man in the sky requires me to telepathically affirm my allegiance to his zombie son because of the actions of his talking snake nemesis. That idea remains firmly planted in the realm of fairy tale fantasy regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of our species’ understanding of biology.

Earlier you expressed your dissatisfaction that I seem to be stating your arguments are frequently contradictory. Well, if you don’t want me to state that, you should probably stop contradicting yourself. Rather than explain why what you’ve said is contradictory, I’ll simply let you speak for yourself. First you said “He showed Himself to me and kept showing over and over that scripture totally applied to everyday life,” then you said “And you calling out arcane culture laws is just your cop out...those laws have no effect on the way God's called us how to live today.” Which is it?

You said, “If you understood Jesus' teachings you would know those don't apply today but you just want to focus on a cultural difference in a time you don't understand.”

You are still refusing to answer how you justify following a deity who *ever* condoned these actions. It doesn’t matter that he doesn’t condone them now, or that they aren’t relevant now, you still have to deal with the fact that your all knowing God accepted these actions in the past. Beating slaves to death, raping women, and stoning children are all acts that are always immoral, regardless of the time frame or culture one resides in. Since you belong to the group that claims moral absolutes, I shouldn’t have to be telling you this.

“Who are you to judge? where do you get your sense of justice?”

Are you honestly trying to say that I have no right to judge rape, slavery, and child murder as immoral?

“First off, God wants to heal us of cancer and disease.”

So he’s not all powerful then?

“The caveat is that we obey and abide in Him, then he responds to us and answers prayers.”

So he will in fact answer your prayer to end all cancer, right?

“Sorry, he is not a genie in a bottle that you want so bad.”

I don’t actually want your deity to do or be anything, as I don’t believe your deity exists. I’m trying to point out to you the inconsistencies in the fairy tales describing his existence.

You said, “You say God is immoral and evil, who determines what is moral, good or evil? How is any conflict resolved when different cultures clash over morality (middle east for example, abortion, cannibalism) while assuming each of their morality is moral? How do you know you are moral? Who determines ultimate morality? You sit back and judge what you think is moral. By what standard?”

Well our morals certainly don’t (or at least shouldn’t) be coming from the Bible. I’ll again point you to the same verses I’ve been mentioning all throughout this discussion. How are these moral verses? Why on Earth would you think we should use a book containing those laws as the basis for our morality? You pointing out that various cultures with different religious beliefs all believing they have the moral high ground doesn’t actually help your position, it hurts it. If God were all powerful and loved us, he’d make it a little easier for everyone to see which way is right and which is wrong, and wouldn’t let us kill each other over the differences.

These arguments about ultimate morality coming from a higher power are all statements of why you *want* your particular deity to exist, they aren’t actually evidence for his existence. Just because you want morality to be handed down by an all powerful deity who personally loves you doesn’t somehow make it more likely that that deity exists. I want the triple headed goddess Hecate to give me magic powers, but that doesn’t somehow prove that Hecate exists.

You also aren’t considering the motivations behind your Bible-based “morality.” There isn’t anything inherently moral about following a rule because you are afraid a big invisible man in the sky will torture you for all eternity if you don’t. Nor is there anything particularly moral in following that same rule because you have the invisible carrot of eternal heavenly bliss dangled in front of your nose. I don’t believe there will be any judgments, punishments, or rewards for anyone after they die – and yet I’m still a moral person who doesn’t steal, murder, or rape.

Quite simply put, there isn’t some invisible sky daddy handing down our morals. Believing that has led to all the truly terrible atrocities in history. It led to the tribes of South America tearing out people’s hearts on a daily basis to ensure the sun god would continue his daily ride. It leads to the Army of God shooting doctors and blowing up clinics. If you choose to believe the Bible, it led to all the slaughters and massacres against people whose only crime was to be living in the place God randomly decided belonged to his people instead. It leads to men flying planes into buildings, parents disowning their children for differences of religious ideology, and all the other backwards ideas that hold our species back from advancing and reaching our potential.

We decide our morals, and there won’t be any eternal afterlife punishment for breaking them. Personally I’d rather follow a rule that we as a society came together and decided on for our own mutual benefit, rather than one arbitrarily given to me by a deity who’s plan consists of making people with the desire to sin, sending them to hell for all eternity for sinning, and then killing his own kid as a blood sacrifice to atone for the very same sin he made people to want to do.

DD
You seem to have a moral compass Ty. You won't answer my questions about morality, I have a lot for you. The answers I have given you won't accept and I expect that. That's ok. So where do you get your morality from and how do you know it's moral? By what standard? Our society does things that other societies think is wicked and vice versa. Who is right? How do we resolve it when both are convinced we are right? Atheists will have differing morals as to what's right and wrong. Who is right? You have a lot of questions but no answers to these dilemmas.

Is there absolute truth? If truth is relative, there is no constant for any order. If there isn't absolute truth then there is chaos, no reasoning, no logic and this sentence would not make any sense. Where does truth come from and how would we know what's true? How do you know what you believe is true? Can you trust in yourself? Lots of ppl do and are dead wrong. One of us is right. One of us is wrong.

Where does the information come from in our dna that is like machine code to tell our cells how to function? Darwin had no idea how complex the cell was when he derived his theory. He didn't know about dna and it's info. His theory falls apart as scientists discover how complex the cell is.

The reason I bring up evolution is because if one doesn't believe in a deity, evolution is the only alternative as to how we got here. Yet your belief system still lacks the answers for which I presented. The bible does. Guess which one I'm gonna pick to believe.

God did make His rules simple. It comes down to wicked people not wanting to obey. This is a pretty clear idea in the bible.

You keep mentioning the wicked things men do to each other. That's not God. That God letting men do what they want. Then He will reward and judge accordingly. Just because murderers attach God's name on their killing mission does not mean they are God's people or even in His will.

Ty Arthur

“You won't answer my questions about morality, I have a lot for you.”

Oh the irony. You have consistently ignored nearly every argument or question I have raised, and now you accuse me of doing exactly what you are doing? I’d suggest you go back and read this post from the beginning.

“So where do you get your morality from and how do you know it's moral? By what standard? Our society does things that other societies think is wicked and vice versa. Who is right? How do we resolve it when both are convinced we are right? Atheists will have differing morals as to what's right and wrong. Who is right? You have a lot of questions but no answers to these dilemmas. Is there absolute truth? If truth is relative, there is no constant for any order. If there isn't absolute truth then there is chaos, no reasoning, no logic and this sentence would not make any sense.”

I have to ask – did you even read my last post? All of this was already addressed. Again, you are listing all the reasons to me why you *want* a deity to exist, you aren’t giving me any actual evidence for this being’s existence. No society is “right” in the cosmic sense, because there is no cosmic right and wrong. We choose our morality. There are no deities handing down proclamations of what actions should be taken and which shouldn’t be. We come together as societies and make decisions on what we will consider morally acceptable and what we won’t, but there aren’t any cosmic truths behind them. If I break a law, I’m not going to be tortured in a lake of fire by your deity for all eternity, just as you aren’t going to rot in hell for failing to follow Allah’s laws.

Yes, there is chaos, and no, there isn’t cosmic reasoning. I’m sorry that you don’t like that, but not liking something doesn’t somehow change it. I don’t like that we didn’t have federal funding for stem cell research for eight years because our President believed in a talking snake, but that doesn’t change the reality that it happened. This is yet another reason why people are willing to cling to religion despite how utterly absurd it is. Of course you want to feel vindicated that your life is moral and correct and you will be rewarded for being the good guy, while all those evil doers out there will eventually get their comeuppance after death. Again – wanting something to be true doesn’t make it true. Sure, I’d love to know that Hitler was being tormented, or that parents who let their children die and refuse to get them medical services and instead rely solely on prayer will be punished in some afterlife, but that’s simply not reality. That’s one of the reasons we make laws, and why we shouldn’t be basing them on religious beliefs - as Allah isn’t going to be meting out punishment to you and me for failing to pray while facing east five times a day.

I feel the need to again point out the differences in motivations for being moral between a Christian and an atheist, as it seems you may have missed it. There’s nothing moral about behaving in a certain way because you are terrified that a cosmic dictator is going to put you through unimaginable torment for all eternity if you don’t follow his rules.

“Where does truth come from and how would we know what's true? How do you know what you believe is true? Can you trust in yourself? Lots of ppl do and are dead wrong. One of us is right. One of us is wrong.”

Now you are arguing a completely separate idea that has nothing to do with morals. We can know if something is true because it will be verifiable. We know that the theories behind internal combustion engines are true because we can repeat them and they continuously occur in the same way. We know gravity is true because we can verify the effects of gravity. We know that Niagra Falls exists because there is reliable video footage of it, and anyone could go visit it if they were so inclined. We don’t know that Jehovah or Hecate or Zeus are true because we can’t verify them in anyway. There is no reliable, repeatable evidence in any way to suggest these beings exist.

“Darwin had no idea how complex the cell was when he derived his theory. He didn't know about dna and it's info.”

Of course he didn’t. Just like any other science, our understanding of biology has been refined and changed over the last 150 years. Our understanding of evolution is not the same as it was in Darwin’s time, so pointing out that Darwin didn’t understand something would be like me pointing out that bronze age men didn’t know how to make computers, so therefore computers must not be real.

“His theory falls apart as scientists discover how complex the cell is.”

Um, no actually, not in any way. Evolution is far, far beyond the scope of this discussion, but I assure you that you are massively wrong on this point. There are a multitude of books, documentaries, and online resources you can acquire for free via your local library that will explain biology to you. Try out “Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea” or “The Greatest Show On Earth.” Unlike the absurd supernatural tales in the Bible or any other holy book, biology is something that actually has evidence (and not just evidence, but a mountain of evidence) behind it. [Berkeley has a website dealing with the evidence for evolution which can be found at this location and Wikipedia has a list of resources on the evidence for common descent here.] But again, it doesn’t matter whether our modern understanding of biology is correct or not – as supernatural tales of talking snakes are still laughable.

“The reason I bring up evolution is because if one doesn't believe in a deity, evolution is the only alternative as to how we got here. Yet your belief system still lacks the answers for which I presented. The bible does. Guess which one I'm gonna pick to believe.”

Oh for the love of…

Again, biology has absolutely no connection to morality or ethics in any way. The two are not even in the same field. Saying you won’t accept biology because it doesn’t give you absolute moral values is no different than saying that you won’t accept the fact of microwave technology because it doesn’t give you absolute moral values. There is *no* connection between them. People make morals, not nature.

Your statements here only further prove my points. The Bible lets you believe that an all powerful sky daddy personally loves you and has a plan for you, and that the way you live is in line with his cosmic morality. Of course you are going to believe that over reality, as reality is significantly less attractive.

“God did make His rules simple. It comes down to wicked people not wanting to obey. This is a pretty clear idea in the bible. You keep mentioning the wicked things men do to each other. That's not God.”

I’m beginning to wonder if you’ve actually read the Bible. You do recall the verses that I keep bringing up, right? Those aren’t descriptions of what people are doing to each other, those are laws, from your God. You absolutely do not get to claim the moral high ground when you a follow a deity who mandated that it’s acceptable to beat slaves to death with a rod, so long as they take at least 2 days to die, or that stoning children to death is a perfectly fine punishment for rebellion. Your God specifically gave these rules to his people. Regardless of the fact that he changed his mind later, he still condoned them at one point. The fact that you still choose to follow this God officially robs you of any ability to proclaim that you can distinguish right from wrong.

“Just because murderers attach God's name on their killing mission does not mean they are God's people or even in His will.”

That’s funny, as I haven’t noticed God coming down here and saying so. But seriously, of course all the people I’ve mentioned aren’t in God’s will – because God isn’t real. My point is that these terrible actions all occur because people are willing to set aside reason and embrace the fairy tales of superstition. Religious suicide bombers who blow up civilians do so because they believe they know the will of an all powerful deity – just as you do. That’s what worries me so greatly about the religious. They believe they have a connection with an all powerful God who will reward them in the afterlife, making their own lives and the lives of others unimportant, and (because God was made my men) they are all eventually forced to rationalize terrible actions committed by their Gods in their holy books. Without religion, the world suddenly becomes a much better place.

DD
God has not given up on you, even though you have given up on Him. His arm is not too short to save. He can soften the hardest of hearts. Only He can soften your heart, I can't. I speak God's love over you. Bless you man :)