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 :)