Conversations with the religious: Dishonest Dave

After side treks into fun doomsday predictions, the claims of Christian apologist Lee Strobel, and common religious arguing tactics, it’s time to get back into the heart of this blog – direct conversations with the religious.  This time we’ll take a look into a newer discussion that took place on a blog titled “Downtown Ministries,” which is run by a gentleman by the name of DowntownDave (although due to his behavior during the discussion, I personally feel “DishonestDave” would have been a better moniker…)

This particular blog put up a post about atheism (that can be found at this location), which made several startling claims about atheists, such as that we are trying to destroy children, that we secretly believe the Christian deity is real, and that Christians aren’t required to provide proof of their deity’s existence.

After a series of exchanges in which Dave refused to answer direct questions and repeatedly reiterated the same idea over and over, even after it had been addressed at length multiple times, he decided to go a step further and delete comments containing questions he couldn’t answer.  Unfortunately I’ve learned to expect this sort of behavior during my discussion with the religious (one of the religious individuals who sent us on our Portland trip to investigate faith healing was infamous for deleting comments containing ideas that contradicted his worldview, and then adding his own comments so it looked like he had gained the upper hand in an argument), which is why I always save each comment as it is made. 

Below you can find the complete and unaltered conversation, which is an interesting look into how Christians (or at least this particular Christian) view atheism and how they react when confronted with questions from actual atheists. Several other people commented before me, and my posts start about nine comments down (as a side note, I haven’t given anyone pseudonyms here as I usually do, because this conversation is already publically available for viewing by anyone and didn’t take place on a social networking site or during a private exchange of messages).

There is one thing that I didn’t bring up in the comments below that is worth examining first however.  Notice how, when responding to an anonymous poster questioning his logic, Dave says “God says you know He's there. Search your heart and mind, honestly. Is He right?”

I’ve seen quite a few similar arguments from Christians before, and it’s interesting how they are trying to determine truth based on emotion, rather than evidence.   The problem with that line of thinking is that feelings do not, and in fact can not, determine whether something is factually accurate.  Say for instance that I search my soul and discover that, in my heart of hearts, I know that Reese Witherspoon is madly in love with me.  My feelings on the subject, and my level of sincere belief, will not change in any way the fact that Reese Witherspoon is not actually in love with me, and in fact doesn’t even know who I am.

 This is how Reese Witherspoon looks every time she thinks about me. My heart says so, and none of your evil reason or logic can convince me otherwise.

Dave fervently believes (or at least claims to fervently believe) that his deity has already provided direct evidence for its existence to all the atheists, and they are just denying this knowledge or lying about it for some reason. But, much like my belief about Reese Witherspoon, his emotions and his level of belief doesn’t change the fact that his belief is still wrong.  The Christian deity has never provided any physical evidence of its existence to me, nor has it popped down to Earth to have a conversation with me, or so on and so forth.

And without further ado, here's the conversation in its entirety:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anonymous 

don't quit your day job

Paul

I don't think you understand atheism.. Quote the bible all you want, the atheist will ask how you have determined that the bible is true. It's just another book, but one you think is true probably because you happened to be born to Christian parents. The burden of proof belongs the person claiming a god exists, just as it would to a person claiming a unicorn exists.

TastyPaper 

I'm an atheist. I'm not walking into any schools, and I have no interest in "destroying" children. Stop making false statements about me, and people who simply disbelieve in your brand of super-naturalism.

Christians are the MAJORITY in the U.S. and you're picking on the minority, as if we could ever outnumber you. If you're really so afraid of us, maybe it's your own belief that's struggling.

Bryan

You really haven't thought this out very well (other than the one-sided overcompensation). You should give atheism an honest try. Most of us are a lot more like you than you imagine. Also, please understand that we don't want to take your religion away from you, we just don't want it pushed on us and our children. Christianity doesn't deserve the privileged status it has been given for far too long, and excludes others outside of this "club". Imagine if the roles were reversed (at least in the USA). Would you be ok with printing "There is no God" on all of our money? I can't imagine you would be very happy with that. Or how about "In Oden we trust"? All we ask is the same courtesy in return, so that we can all just be Americans. Atheism is the largest "religious" minority in the USA, and we matter every bit as much as the religions, with the demand and expectation of equal rights. That seems completely reasonable to me...

Downtown Dave
No, Paul, the burden of proof belongs to God, and He has already proven Himself.

Downtown Dave 

Bryan, you can't give Atheism an honest try when at the very core of atheism is the deceitfulness of a man's own heart.

Anonymous 

It looks to me Dave as if you scanned through the comments looking specifically for the points with which you disagree. You either missed, or failed to address the bulk of what has been said, which is a serious problem in any intellectually honest discussion.

You're welcome believe that you can tell me what my epistemological theory is while knowing nothing about me. I would not (by the way) be anywhere near as presumtuous with regard to yours, and prefer the time honored tradition of actually asking someone what their position is instead of telling them.

One wonders why the language of your blog is as militant as it is. As a lover of peace, words like "battle", "arena", and "destroy" certainly don't enter into my dialogue with Christians.

I could systematically correct you on a number of statements which (depending upon your intent) are either mistakes, or lies. I think the root of the problem however, lies in your heart and not your mind.

Downtown Dave 

The purpose of this blog, Anonymous, is because the issue of atheism is no longer a debate between you and me (which you are consistently trying to make it), but between you and God. The Scriptures quoted are God's message to you--he knows the thoughts and intent of your heart. You may very well be able to overcome me in a debate, but you can't overcome the truth of God's Word. God says you know He's there. Search your heart and mind, honestly. Is He right?

Ty Arthur
Hey Dave,

I came across your blog and felt the need to respond to many of the statements you’ve made here.  As a full upfront disclosure, I am not a member of any Christian denomination, and am in fact an atheist.  I’ve been involved in many debates, both online and offline with members of many different religions, so I’d like to give a little disclaimer ahead of time here that none of this should be taken as a personal attack, but rather as an exchange of ideas so you can better understand my position and I can better understand yours.  I’d also like to point out that none of the questions I ask here should be considered rhetorical – I would actually like for you to carefully consider what I ask and respond if you have the time or inclination.  To get a few common questions and deflections out of the way ahead of time, yes, I have read the Bible cover to cover, and yes, I have attended church services of many different denominations – from Baptist to Foursquare to Mormon to Pentecostal to Catholoic to Charismatic, and so on.

I have put your words in quotes below to make it clear what issue I’m addressing.

“And as we do battle there, they are systematically trying to take God out of America, and they are walking right into our schools and destroying our children.”

I have frequently heard similar statements from Christians about God being removed from schools, and have seen several billboard style adds insinuating that God allows violence in schools because he isn’t allowed in the school system.  As someone who has attended both the public school system and a private Christian school, I can assure that this just simply isn’t the case.

Christianity is not barred in any way from schools.  The public school I attended from my sophomore year to my senior year had a Christian club that met every morning for prayer.  Children were allowed to bring any religious text they wanted and read it during their free time, as they would with any other book. My French teacher taught us church hymns in French during Christmas season.  My biology teacher went out of her way to gloss over the cornerstone of all modern biology - evolution - because of her religious beliefs (and again, this was all in public school, after I left a private Christian school).

What’s not allowed in schools is for teachers to *force* students to pray or to specifically endorse one religion over any other.  And that’s not a bad thing, even for Christians.

Consider for a moment if the same statement you made came from someone of the Islamic faith.  How would you feel if someone campaigned to insert Allah into public schools and ensure children prayed facing east five times a day?  I’m willing to bet that you’d suddenly feel the same way as I do about keeping religion out of schools.  For those parents who feel their children need a religious upbringing, there is always the option of private religious schools that teach whatever doctrine the family happens to adhere to (although as someone who’s been there and done that, I can’t recommend it).

Next, you went on to state, “In Psalm 14:1 it is written, ‘The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.’ The Word of God says that the person says it, not that they believe it. John 1:9 says, ‘The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.’ No person is without the revelation of God.”

I’d again ask you to consider how you would respond if someone of an opposing religion (or even a different denomination of Christianity that doesn’t believe your denomination actually has salvation) were to say this same thing to you.  Would you be swayed to admit your belief in Allah if a Muslim told you that all people have the revelation of Allah?  What if I told you that no person is without the revelation that there is no God – would that sway you to admit your atheism?

I can assure that I very much am without revelation of any supernatural being, whether it be Zeus, Allah, Hecate, Poseidon, Cthulhu, Hercules, Jehovah, Mithra, Kali, the flying spaghetti monster, or any other deity that’s ever been believed in throughout history.  I have seen no evidence for the existence of any of these beings, and I harbor no secret belief in any of them.  It’s pointless, and even somewhat counter-productive, to tell members of opposing viewpoints that they secretly agree with you.   If I were to quote some text that said Christians secretly agreed with atheists, would you consider my argument valid?  If you wouldn’t, then how can you expect others to consider your argument as valid?

“John 15:18 says, ‘If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated Me first.’ It is impossible for someone to hate Christians without first hating Jesus. And it is impossible for someone to hate someone that they don’t believe exists.”

I’d again like to ask you to consider this same idea from an opposite view point.  I’m going to assume that you are an atheist in regards to the deity Demeter, who is worshipped by many Wiccans.  Does your atheism of Demeter mean that you hate all Wiccans, and that your hatred of Wiccans somehow proves that Demeter is real?  As you yourself said, I can’t possibly hate something that doesn’t exist.  As an atheist, I don’t hate Jesus any more than I hate Santa Claus.

I will freely admit that I hate many of the things Christians have done. I hate that Paul Hill shot and killed doctors because of his religious beliefs.  I hate that Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist church picket the funerals of soldiers who died in combat while holding signs that say “Thank God for IEDs” and “Pray for more dead soldiers.”  I hate that the Pope once told people in Africa that condoms cause AIDs and they shouldn’t be using them.  I hate that many denominations of Christianity, primarily led by the Mormons, banded together to deny equal civil rights to homosexuals in California. (As a quick aside - should you be compelled to respond by saying “but those aren’t *real* Christians,” I’d ask you to consider that they very likely feel the same way about you) But none of that somehow means that I hate Jesus or all Christians.  As an atheist, I feel that people should be judged on their individual merits, and not necessarily just by their inclusion in a specific social group.

"God set me free from that. It’s not your responsibility to prove the existence of God. It’s God’s responsibility. And He’s already done it. He has proven His existence through Creation, Conscience, and Christ, the Word of God.”

I would humbly disagree with you here.  Again, consider if someone of an opposing religion said the same thing to you.  If someone who fervently believed in Zeus said that it wasn’t their responsibility to prove Zeus’s existence, as the very nature of creation pointed to the existence of Zeus, would you be swayed to believe in Zeus in any way?

This is why we have a concept known as the “burden of proof.”  If someone is making a claim (for instance, “The Christian God is real”), then the burden of proof falls on that person to prove their claim.  The burden of proof does not fall on me to disprove your claim.  Until valid, verifiable evidence is provided to back up a claim, there is simply no reason for anyone to accept it as valid.

Consider if I told you that the real creator of the universe was a giant fuzzy pickle, and his name was Bob.  Bob’s nemesis is an invisible purple elephant, and he created Christianity to lead people away from Bob’s truth.  Now say that I told you it’s not my responsibility to prove Bob’s existence, because it’s Bob’s responsibility, and he’s already done it. Bob has proven his existence through creation, conscience, his son Phil, and his holy book.

Would you accept this argument from me about Bob? If not, how can you expect anyone else to accept that argument from you about the Christian deity?  Until you can provide some sort of evidence to back up your claim, there is no reason for anyone to consider it a valid possibility – just as you don’t have to consider my claim about Bob to be a valid possibility until I provide some proof to back it up.

“Creation proves the existence of God.”

I would urge you to head to your local library and pick up a text on cosmology, or even perform a simple Google search for a phrase like “Origin of the Universe” and read through the many resources that are freely available online from legitimate, reputable scientific sources.  The origin of the universe does not require a supernatural explanation.

And again, please consider this exact same statement from someone of an opposing religion.  If the fact that the universe exists doesn’t prove Thor or Hephaestus or Azathoth, then why would it prove the Christian deity?

"Your conscience proves the existence of God.”

Does my conscience prove the existence of Aphrodite?  What about Baal? Cernunnos? Fenrir?  Hades? Nergal?  The Biblical passage you quoted says “(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)”   I would submit to you that perhaps these verses from Romans should be looked at from a different angle – as even the Bible is freely admitting here that man doesn’t need a belief in Jesus in order to be moral and have values.  I don’t believe in any god or goddess, and yet I have a moral compass.  As a side note here, in many conversations I’ve had with the religious I will typically be asked at this point why I behave in a moral manner if there is no God to provide a promise of heaven or a threat of hell.  I’ve covered this topic at this location if you’re interested in reading my thoughts.

“Christ, the Word of God, proves the existence of God.”

I can provide you with resources where historians talk about Hercules.  Does this prove that his father Zeus is real?  I can show you a copy of the Koran, the word of Allah – does this prove the existence of Allah?  If not, then why should these things prove the Christian God?

“Since God gives witness of His existence to every person, no person can honestly say they do not believe there is a God. So what is really going on….” And then “(Rebellion against God is what really is going on.)”

I would again like to reiterate that I have witnessed nothing to show the existence of any god or goddess, whether it be the Christian deity or any other supernatural being people believe in.  I can’t possibly be rebelling against the Christian deity, as I don’t believe that being exists.  Would you accept this same argument if a Muslim told you that you are rebelling against Allah and that Allah has given witness of his existence to you?

I’m going to assume that as a Christian you believe your deity is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipresent (everywhere at once).  There’s an open invitation here from me to any supernatural being that may exist to provide proof of its existence to me. As a being that is all-powerful and already everywhere at once, it should be a simple matter for the Christian deity to appear and say “Sorry about the mixup, I’m real, and this sect of Christianity over here is the right one.”   As a loving being who doesn’t want me to go to hell, it should be in his best interest to do so, and yet you may want to note that this hasn’t happened.

I am an honest person.  If I had seen evidence for the existence of any deity, I would have no choice but to admit it and become a theist.  I have seen no evidence for the existence of any supernatural being, and thus I remain an atheist.

 “A person can either continue in rebellion and be destroyed, or they can take refuge in Christ and escape God’s wrath.”

This argument is a logical fallacy known as an “appeal to force.”  This type of argument essentially says, “agree with me, or you will be punished.”   The problem with an appeal to force is that it doesn’t actually change the facts. I can appeal to force for a position that’s incorrect, but that appeal to force doesn’t somehow make my position correct.  I can threaten you with eternal hellfire if you don’t believe the moon is made out of cheese, but it won’t change the fact that the moon is not made of cheese.  Consider if I were to say the same thing to you as what you wrote above, but simply swapped out the name of the deity.  Would it make my argument correct if I appealed to force by saying, “A person can either continue in rebellion and be destroyed, or they can take refuge in Odin and escape his wrath”?

Thanks for your time Dave, and have a great week!

Downtown Dave

Ty, if you read a good book, and quote something to me that you read in the book, does that make you the author, or are you relaying something to me that you read? The Scriptures quoted above are not my own words, I'm quoting from the Word of God, therefore your debate is with God, not with me.

You said that the burden of proof lies with me, but the burden lies with God. In Luke 16:19-31 we find 8 characters: Abraham, Lazarus (in Abrahams bosom or Paradise), the rich man (in hell) and the rich man's five brothers. The rich man wanted Abraham to provide proof of hell to his brothers by sending Lazarus up from the dead and tell them about it so they wouldn't end up there. Abraham immediately took the burden of proof off of himself and put the burden on the Word of God, the Scriptures, by saying, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets (the Old Testament), they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."

As one who has read the Bible cover to cover, isn't it true that the people of Jesus' day kept asking that Jesus would just give them one more sign, and then one more sign, and then one more, and then they would believe?

God has already proven Himself to you.

CoderHead
Dave, you're missing the point. Any member of any other religion could make an identical statement:

"Odin has already proven himself to you."
"Zeus has already proven himself to you."
"Allah has already proven himself to you."

It's an assertion and nothing more. It does nothing to reveal the actual truth of the claim but merely speaks from a presupposition. This is why atheists demand evidence, much like Thomas did when Jesus provided him with the exact evidence he needed in order to overcome his skepticism. Yes, Jesus chastised him for his lack of faith but there's nothing indicating that Thomas was damned to Hell for being skeptical of extraordinary claims. An observant atheist will take this one of two ways:

1. It's OK to ask for evidence of god's existence because god is said to love us and want us in Heaven with him.
2. It's patently unfair for Thomas to have been shown what he needed to believe when the rest of us aren't allowed to "test god."

I'd also like to point out that your NT scripture is taken out of context and the Psalms are personal poetry, meaning that god didn't "breathe" those words even if they were inspired by David's love of god. You may want to try using a logical, convincing argument instead of throwing something together piecemeal to try and sway a person who needs a compelling reason to believe.

Downtown Dave

No, I'm not missing the point. It's good that you want evidence, but I'm not the one to give it to you, it's God. And He says in His Word that He has already given you the evidence.

Ty Arthur
Dave,

(This is part 1 of 2 due to space restrictions in comments) I appreciate that you took the time to respond, but I’m afraid I have to express some frustration here.  Can you see from my point of view how it would be frustrating that I took the time to respond point by point to everything you said, and yet you ignored nearly everything I wrote, and then even reiterated an issue I’d already addressed?

Should I assume that you are conceding every point you ignored, and that you agree with me on these subjects?  If you don’t cover them in any way, how am I to assume otherwise?  Before getting into your new post, I want to go over several of the issues that weren’t addressed to make sure we are on the same page, or at least understand where the other party stands and why.

Do you understand the difference between atheists trying to destroy children and take God out of schools, and the reality of the situation that public schools don’t ban Christianity, but rather prohibit teachers from forcing students to take part in it or any other religion?

Do you agree that your atheism towards the deity Demeter doesn’t prove the claims of Wicca and doesn’t mean you hate all Wiccans, just as my atheism towards the Christian deity doesn’t prove the claims of Christianity or mean I hate Christians?

Can you see from my point of view how it may appear dishonest of you (and as though you hold a pretty big double standard) to require all other religions to hold the burden of proof for the existence of their deity, and yet claim that you don’t hold the burden of proof to prove the existence of your deity?  Do you realize you wouldn’t accept this same argument from any other religion, and can you see why atheists wouldn’t accept it from you?

Did you head down to your library or even perform a Google search on the origins of the universe?  Do you understand that the existence of life does not require a supernatural explanation, so that argument isn’t a convincing one for the existence of any deity?

Ty Arthur
(This is part 2 of 2, continued from above) In your response, you said, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets (the Old Testament), they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."

I’m again afraid I’ll have to disagree with you here.  If you were to show me valid, verifiable evidence that someone had been raised from the dead through magical means, I would have simply no choice but to admit the existence of the supernatural.  I have not seen any evidence to back up any supernatural claim (from those of Wiccans to those of mediums to those of Christianity and any other religion). The only reason statements like this have to be made is because people do *not* magically rise from the dead, so the supporters of supernatural beliefs need a failsafe to explain why there is no proof.  Human beings do *not* have limbs magically regrown through the power of prayer or magic rituals.  Seas do *not* verifiably part and allow refugees to run through.  Bushes do *not* verifiably burn without being consumed and have big booming voices come out of them. And so on and so forth.

But beyond all that, you may want to take into consideration that I didn’t ask for someone to be resurrected from the dead.  I stated that I was open to any supernatural being, of any religion, appearing in front of me and having a rational conversation in which that being explains it’s existence and states which sect of which religion is the right one.  It would appear that five minutes of direct, rational conversation is simply beyond the abilities of the all-powerful, omnipresent Christian deity.  This is why the burden of proof falls on you in this instance.  If your deity won’t appear and defend itself, it’s up to you to provide some evidence to back up your deity’s existence.  Can you see how you would expect no different from the members of an opposing religion if the situations were reversed?

You then also said, “God has already proven Himself to you.”

Unfortunately, repeating the same idea over and over doesn’t change whether that idea is factually correct or factually incorrect.  You can continue to tell me that the Christian deity has already shown itself as many times as you wish, but it won’t change the fact that this statement is simply incorrect.

Repeatedly telling me that the Christian god has shown me proof of its existence isn’t any more helpful (or conducive to an effective discussion and exchange of ideas) than if I were to repeatedly tell you that the Islamic god had already show you proof of its existence.  I disagree with your statement for the same reasons that you would disagree with mine.

I would urge you to take the time to consider what this means for your beliefs.  You believe the Bible, the infallible inspired word of an all-knowing and all-powerful being, states that the Christian god has already proven its existence to me.  I’m telling you directly in no uncertain terms that no deity, whether yours or anyone else’s, has shown me any evidence for its existence. What does that say about your god and your Bible (or at the very least, your interpretation of it)?

Thanks for taking the time to read this Dave, and hope all is well for you and yours!

CoderHead

He may (or his followers may) *think* he's given me evidence, but what I'm talking about is the verifiable evidence he gave to Thomas. Thomas proves that it's OK to be a skeptic, would you agree? I'd like you to comment on that since you seem to have overlooked it. I'm interested in what you have to say.

Again, every other god throughout history can make the claim that they're self-evident. It doesn't mean they ever existed. Please understand that I'm trying to point out a very logical and rational point and I'm in no way attacking you.

Downtown Dave

Without being disrespectful to either Ty or Coderhead, my comments may not seem to answer every point, but they do. It is God who has said that He has given you the proof. The Scripture says (and this is Scripture, not me) "Let God be true and every man a liar." God says He has revealed/proven Himself to us. And that's it. And He is holding everyone of us accountable for what He has revealed.

CoderHead

Dave, the problem I have with how you're arguing this is that you dismiss out of hand any identical assertions from other gods, yet you feel that such an assertion by your god ought to convince us to believe as you do. If you can so easily dismiss thousands of other gods I hardly see where we could be labeled haters for doing the same with one more god. Do you understand the arguments Ty and I are making?

Downtown Dave

Yes, I understand the arguments. Acts 17:29-31 says, "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhwere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead. (Notice here who has given the proof).

CoderHead

Dave, I'd love to continue to try and understand your viewpoint but it's almost as though you don't want me to. Your quoting of Acts 17:29-31 would be fine in the context of Paul's ministry less than 40 years after Jesus' death. However, 2000 years later we can hardly consider the "evidence" of Jesus' resurrection compelling. It seems as though you're shifting the argument now (or perhaps this passage doesn't entirely convey your point) to the existence of eyewitnesses - none of which are still alive. If I've made an incorrect assumption, I apologize. However, I don't see this passage of scripture as offering anything new to the discussion. Rather, it appears you're just cherry-picking verses that support your preconception.

To be honest, I'd be interested in hearing what *you* have to say about it instead of being fed the words of others from a book I've already read and found lacking. Is that fair?

Ty Arthur

Dave,

I’m disappointed to see that you continue to actively refuse to answer every direct question asked of you, and that you continue to blindly repeat the mantra that your deity has already proven its existence to us.

Consider if you had a child who told you the boogeyman was not only real, but also a major player in his life. Pretend for a moment that you tried to explain to your superstitious offspring that the boogeyman is just a figment of his imagination, and a construct conjured up by his mind to explain the unknown. But your child won’t be dissuaded from his belief, and states quite confidently that he knows, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the boogeyman does in fact exist. If you ask your child to prove his claim, and show you the boogeyman, what would you do if your child told you he doesn’t need to prove the boogeyman’s existence to you, and that you in fact already know the boogeyman is real – as the boogeyman has appeared to you in the dead of night, and you are just denying it for some reason.

Can you see how this is what you’ve been doing here?

It doesn’t matter how many times you reiterate your belief that the Christian deity has provided evidence of his existence to all people. It can be said a hundred times or a million times, and it won’t change the simple truth that I have seen no evidence of any kind for the existence of the Christian deity, or any other god or goddess from any other mythology.

Using the Bible as a shield to protect yourself from the burden of proof isn’t going to convince anyone of your position, and it’s actually rather dishonest and just plain silly. You wouldn’t accept this same argument from anyone under any other circumstances, and it should be obvious why no one has to accept this argument from you in this circumstance.

Telling me that the Bible says I already have seen proof of the Biblical deity is pointless, as I don’t accept the Bible as a valid resource on reality (The bit about the talking snake or the story of universe being formed in six days by an invisible wizard in the sky should have been the first clues, and then it just gets less believable from there) any more than I consider The Lord of the Rings fantasy novels to be a valid resource on reality. You can’t use the Bible to prove the stories in the Bible any more than I can use The Fellowship of the Ring to prove the stories in The Fellowship of the Ring. You have to provide outside evidence to back up your claims, just as I would have to provide outside evidence to back up my claim if I stated that I believed in Gandalf, and that The Fellowship of the Ring is proof of Gandalf’s existence. I can tell you that you secretly know Gandalf is real and you are just rebelling against him as many times as I want, but it won’t change the fact that I’m wrong, and you actually haven’t seen any evidence for the existence of Gandalf.

Based on your responses up until now, it seems rather pointless to try to continue this discussion at this point, as it’s a completely one-sided conversation. If you are unwilling to consider your position from an outside viewpoint, and are completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that you may be wrong, then what’s the point in talking with people at all?

I hope that one day you’ll have the honesty and bravery to really scrutinize your beliefs and have the willingness to accept truth, no matter where it takes you. As someone who has escaped the shackles of superstition, I can assure you that there is a joy and freedom out here in reality that can’t be matched by unyielding belief in the supernatural. Until then, I wish you the best, and hope all goes well for you and yours.

Downtown Dave

Your right. I have shifted the argument from you and me to you and God. Again, the burden of proof is on Him. In the verses you speak of above, you'll notice God says He has given proof of the resurrection to all men, not just to those who saw it. Understand, my purpose is not to frustrate you. My hope is that in this Book that you say is lacking, God will make Himself known to you. My prayers are with you.

Downtown Dave

No matter how many scenarios you give me, Ty, the burden of proof will always be with God. Would I think that I could do a better job of proving God to you than He has? No.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't fret Mr. Camping, it's not the end of the world.

For many months now, Harold Camping and his followers have been putting up thousands of billboards, handing out pamphlets, giving radio talks, and even traveling across the country in a caravan of ad-covered vehicles to get out the word that the rapture was to occur at 6:00 PM on Saturday, May 21st.  Below you can see some of these unfortunate folk carrying signs with the dubious claim that "The Bible guarantees it!" (as though that were a selling point?)

For anyone not familiar with Camping's rapture predictions, or the Biblical sources he used to reach the date of May 21st, you can check out his "We Can Know" website here.  The site is currently down, likely due to high traffic, but I took a bunch of screenshots several months ago when I first heard about these guys, as I figured the content of the website would likely drastically change when the predicted date came and went without any supernatural events occurring.  You can check out the images below, which feature some of Camping's, er, "rationale" as to why judgment day would be occurring today.

Clearly Jesus didn't descend from the clouds, earthquakes didn't ravage the planet, and fire and brimstone failed to fall from the heavens, as pretty much anyone with the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality already figured was going to happen.

Camping and his followers will get all the ridicule they deserve in the coming weeks for being gullible enough to accept these claims, but today I won't be adding on much more.  Many of these people spent all of their money, ran up massive debt, quit their jobs, left their families, and abandoned their homes to go spread the word.  The shattered lives they will have to try to piece back together after today is far more of a punishment than I could ever give them with mere words, and I sincerely hope they will be able to find a way to return to a semblance of a normal existence.

What bothers me most about today is not Harold Camping or his followers.

On news stories, blog posts, religious websites, and even Facebook discussions, I've seen many Christians attempt to distance themselves and their brand of Christianity from Camping, claiming that no one can know the day when Jesus will return to Earth and rapture off the believers. They've frequently quoted Matthew 24:36, which states "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." I've even engaged in discussion with people who have gone so far as to say that these armageddon ready folks aren't actually "true" Christians at all.

Take, for instance, this post from the Grace Fellowship Baptist church, which derides Camping for making a prediction of the end times, while still maintaining that Camping is correct that the rapture will happen one day.  There's also the delightfully silly Rapture Condition website, which even has a daily rapture forecast (today's is a 2, or "likely rapture." Would they ever have a "5: Not Possible Today" forecast?)

While Camping and his followers have shown the dangers of religious belief first hand, it's not them that prompted me to write this blog today. It’s the Christians who disagree with Camping, not because of his belief that magic zombie Jesus would be descending from the clouds and taking the believers to an invisible heaven realm, but because he had the audacity to try to put a date on this absurd supernatural event that they *all agree will happen* at some unknown date in the future.

All Christians are complicit in this lie, and all are equally guilty here.

It is absurd for Christians to distance themselves from this movement, while still maintaining that it's core belief is perfectly reasonable. They are trying to have it both ways - believing the event will happen, but going out of their way to avoid putting a date on it so they can't ever be conclusively shown that their belief is wrong. They can forever say it will happen any day now, with all those wars and rumors and wars proving it's getting closer, and no amount of time will ever convince them that their faith was misplaced.

Honestly, it’s like hearing someone say “Oh no, no, we’re not like those silly people over there who believe in the boogey man. I mean, the boogey man is definitely real, but they think they know what bed he’s under! How ridiculous is that? Our religious text clearly says no one can know which bed the boogey man is really under, therefore those crazies aren’t *real* boogey men believers, and they give us a bad name!”

Camping has created an amazing case study in how open to interpretation the Bible really is, however. One would think that a book that very clearly says no one can know the day or the hour of Christ's return could only be interpreted one way.  But, like nearly every other passage in that entire "holy" text, 50 people can read it, come away believing 50 different things, starting 50 different denominations, and all believing with great fervor that God backs up their interpretation and disagrees with all the rest.  

If you read through Camping's writings, he uses other verses found throughout the Bible to show that the text in Matthew doesn't currently apply to believers, and that God really does say we can know when the end times will finally roll around.  For those Christians who may scoff at this notion, consider how much of a common practice this is in any denomination of Christianity. Plenty of Christians are willing to use later verses in the Bible to explain away why people no longer have to follow the earlier verses about stoning children to death, forcing rape victims to marry their attackers, sacrificing goats and splattering their blood on an altar, and prohibitions against eating shell fish or wearing clothes with mixed fibers. One of the most elegant solutions I've seen from Camping followers is to simply look at the tense of the verb in the sentence.  After all, it only says "No one knows the day or the hour," it doesn't say "No one can know the day or the hour later."

The link between standard Christian belief and Harold Camping's belief doesn't end there however. Consider those verses that clearly state "this is a permanent law for you, to be observed by all generations." There are many such laws in the Bible that Christians no longer follow, such as Leviticus 3:17, which issues a permanent edict against eating fat.  Much like you'd think the phrase "No one knows the day or the hour" wouldn't be open to interpretation, it would seem like the phrase "This is a permanent law for you, and it must be observed from generation to generation, wherever you live" also wouldn't be open to interpretation.  And yet, were I to point this or any other similar verse out to a Christian, they would happily explain to me why the phrase "This is a permanent commandment" doesn't actually mean "This is a permanent commandment."  For Christians to deride Camping for doing this, while they themselves do it on a daily basis, is hypocritical in the extreme.

Isn't it odd that this supposedly omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipresent (every at once) being can't be bothered to come down here and settle the matter, plainly and openly telling people which interpretation is right, and which is wrong?  Is baptism in Jesus's name required for salvation?  Can you lose your salvation?  Will there be a seven year tribulation or only months-long tribulation? How many people will get raptured? Is speaking in tongues and casting out demons still supposed to be done by the faithful?  Ask those questions to 10 Christians, and you will get 10 different answers, all with Bible verses backing up their position.


It shouldn't be hard for God to pop down here and let Camping (and the rest of us), know whether or not his interpretation of verses is correct, and yet he remains silent on the subject.  While Camping now has two failed rapture predictions under his belt, there's no doubt in my mind that it won't dissuade him and others like him to continue setting new dates in the future.  God's silence on the subject is rather odd, considering how easy it would be to put a stop to this nonsense if he disagrees with it.


What's even more damning about the Christian deity's silence is how greatly Camping's claims impacted the lives of both Christians and non-believers. Take the Haddad family. The parents of this family believed today would bring the second coming of Jesus, while the children wisely wanted nothing to do with such claims.  These parents have irredeemably changed their children's lives for the worse - going out of their way to tell their kids they aren't going to heaven (just what every child wants to hear from mom!), dragging them through ridiculous streetside demonstrations for something they completely disagree with, and even failing to save any money for their college tuition, since they saw it as a waste of time, what with the world ending and all.


Other people have been completely financially ruined and destroyed relationships with family and friends, all in the name of God and his message. It should have been perfectly within this God figure's power to have warned all these people not to leave their jobs and spend their life savings on false teachings, and yet he actively chose not to.  They joyfully ruined their lives, believing that they were following God's word and that God fully supported their actions. I would submit that such a being could not be considered to be either "loving" or "good," which are two qualities Christians frequently attribute to their deity.

During my discussions with believers and skeptics about the failed rapture, I've noticed that Christians don’t seem to realize that nonbelievers probably want the rapture to happen even more than they do. Personally I would love for the rapture to occur, and I hope that if it did, God would be in a very generous mood and decide to take absolutely anyone with sincere religious beliefs up to heaven, rather than just the members of one denomination of Christianity.

Imagine a world with no Fred Phelps and his family picketing the funerals of dead soldiers with hateful signs. No Pat Robertson blaming terrorist attacks and natural disasters on people’s sexual practices. No laws taking away people’s civil rights because of the words of Bronze Age goat sacrificers. No Pope telling the people of Africa to stop using condoms to prevent the spread of HIV. No children dying because parents think prayer is a better option than medicine. No blocking of stem cell research funding due to religious beliefs so we can finally get on the road to cures for diabetes and Alzheimer’s and spina bifida. No groups launching rockets and strapping bombs to their chests because God told them this particular stretch of desert belongs to them. No people giving stupid amounts of money to Scientology to find out the whole thing was really about galactic evil lord Xenu all along. No groups deciding women can’t hold positions of power because the invisible wizard in the sky has a penis and not a vagina.

I’ll take that world over this one any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

And to finish off, I'll leave you with this little slice of animated rapture awesomeness:

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.